FABRIL GASOSA AGENCIAE SEQUERIA Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER:LABOUR COMMISSIONER
LAWS(SC)-1997-1-16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
January 31,1997
FABRIL GASOSA,AGENCIAE SEQUERIA
Appellant
VERSUS
LABOUR COMMISSIONER
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUBAI VS. BEST WORKERS UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-88] [REFERRED TO]MUKESH PRAKASH PUJARI VS. MUKUND DAMMANI [LAWS(CHH)-2015-2-50] [REFERRED]
CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED VS. METTUR CHEMICALS PODHU [LAWS(MAD)-1998-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR ANEJA VS. GURDAIL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2000-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
FACT WORKERS ORGANISATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-348] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN CONSTRUCTIONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-267] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGEMENT, TAMIL NADU KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD VS. THE WORKMEN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF KALEESWARAR MILLS VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-535] [REFERRED TO]
C DASARATHAN VS. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-120] [REFERRED TO]
JANTA HIGH SCHOOL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1998-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL JOINT VENTURE VS. PANILPINA WORLD TRANSPORT [LAWS(DLH)-2008-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
D S GUPTA CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF N C T DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1997-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
M RAJAIAH VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1998-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF HOLWART ENGINEERING COMPANY REP BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR R RAMAMOORTHY VS. S DHANASEKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2012-1-149] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK AGGARWAL VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(P&H)-2002-1-150] [REFERRED]
JOSEPH C C VS. K S E B [LAWS(KER)-2010-3-35] [RELIED ON]
MANAGEMENT VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-211] [REFERRED TO]
M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT VS. M.J. PRASAD [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. ISHWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2022-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION VS. BACHAN SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMINATHAN C S VS. SIMPSON and CO LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2000-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
CHOWGULE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD VS. COMMISSIONER-LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-200] [REFERRED TO]
GARMENT AND FASHION WORKERS UNION VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-12-139] [REFERRED TO]
V.MURUGAIYAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-10-426] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMAL (DSPCA) VS. JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-260] [REFERRED TO]
VINITA VS. ASHOK PERUMULLA RLC CENTRAL [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-233] [REFERRED TO]
D.NAGARAJAN VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2021-6-233] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF CHEMECH ENGINEERS P LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-381] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF BINNY LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-133] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MOOL SINGH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
DHANALAKSHMI MILLS LTD REP BY ITS MANAGER TRIPUR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-208] [REFERRED TO]
M/S STAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
HYDERABAD CO OPERATIVE TRADING SOCIETY LTD VS. AUTHORITY UNDER A P SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT 1988 [LAWS(APH)-2004-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
K. LAKSHMANAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-543] [REFERRED TO]
SAJU A. R. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-5-152] [REFERRED TO]
MARGADARSI CHIT FUNT PRIVATE LIMITED HYDERABAD VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1999-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
METAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-284] [REFERRED TO]
CHRISTINE HODEN I PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL BAURI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGG ZHAKAM PROJECT VS. RAMESH CHANDRA [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH DENNIS T.P. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-7-182] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(PAT)-1997-5-44] [DISTINGUISHED]
MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT [LAWS(CHH)-2017-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAI PRATAP SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-111] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF M C D VS. M C D [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
MANAS KUMAR RAI S/O LATE BALESHWAR RAI VS. GARGI DEVI VERMA WIDOW OF LATE JANAK RAM VERMA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
P.RAJENDRAN VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(MAD)-2021-2-386] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF RSL INDUSTRIES VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-156] [REFERRED TO]
M B LAGHU UDYOG NIGAM LTD VS. MOHD IMRAN [LAWS(MPH)-2001-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH LAGHU UDYOG NIGAM LTD., BHOPAL. VS. MOHD. IMRAN & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2001-4-94] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT, TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SALEM) LTD. AND ORS. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SALEM AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-545] [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK STAFF UNION VS. CANARA BANK [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI FINANCIAL CORPN VS. RAJIV ANAND [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-322] [REFERRED TO]
METTUR CHEMICALS PODHU THOZHILALAR SANGAM METTUR VS. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED METTUR [LAWS(MAD)-1997-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR MORESHWAR SATPUTE VS. SHARDA INDUSTRIES and ENGINEERING WORKS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-137] [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK STAFF UNION VS. CANARA BANK [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
TRHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPN VS. P O LABOUR COURT [LAWS(UTN)-2004-11-8] [DISTINGUISHED]
FEDERATION OF TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS OPPANTHA THOZHILALAR SANGAMS AND ORS. VS. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU STATE ADVISORY CONTRACT LABOUR BOARD AND THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-428] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF CHEMECH ENGINEERS (P) LTD., CHENNAI AND ANOTHER VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-495] [REFERRED TO]
DHANALAKSHMI MILLS LTD., TIRUPUR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-395] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Dr. ANAND,J. -
(1.)Leave granted in both special leave petitions.
(2.)The appellants are sister concerns. Their Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 19-6-1995 upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18-7-1994 dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 19-6-1995.
(3.)On 9th of December, 1986 a settlement was arrived at between the appellants and the employees union relating to service conditions of the workmen for the period 1-4-86 to 30-6-88. The settlement inter alia provided that VDA (variable dearness allowance) shall be paid at Rs. 2/- per point of rise per month beyond AICPI 450 and the wages of the employees were linked with the VDA. The employee union issued a notice of its intention to terminate the settlement with a view to submit a fresh charter of demands on 1-7-88. A fresh charter of demands was submitted by the employees union demanding an increase in the salary etc. on 17-7-88 but it was mentioned therein that the service conditions in force would continue to remain unchanged unless specifically agreed to otherwise. The employees union did not seek and change in the charter of demands in so far as the rate of VDA was concerned. No fresh settlement appears to have been arrived at between the parties but the appellants relying upon the notice of termination and the new charter of demand,s unilaterally freezed VDA with effect from 4-8-88. Negotiations between the employees union and the appellant, did not, however, produce any fresh settlement. The employees union (respondent No. 3) issued a demand notice to the employer on 21-1-91 demanding VDA with effect from 1-7-88. It was claimed that the unilateral freezing of the VDA was illegal and that the obligations in the settlement dated 9-12-1986 were in force and binding on the parties. The employees union, it appears apart from filing an application before the authorities under the payment of Wages Act alleging illegal deduction from wages, also approached the State Government for issuance of the recovery certificate for the arrears of VDA. The Labour Commissioner, on behalf of the State Government, issued a notice to the appellants on the application filed by the employees union with regard to the payment of VDA on 14-5-91. The appellants were required by the Labour Commissioner to reply to the claims of the respondent union. The appellants took the stand in their reply that the settlement of 1986 stood terminated and referred to the letter of the employees union dated 1-7-88 conveying their intention to terminate the settlement and the fresh charter of demands. The appellants further resisted the claim of the union inter alia by taking the plea that there was an oral agreement arrived at between the parties to freeze the VDA at June, 1988 point and therefore the claim of the employees union was untenable. The appellants, however, produced no evidence in support of its plea of oral agreement. The Labour Commissioner found that no oral agreement had been proved and that obligation of the employer to pay the VDA under the 1986 continued to be in force and with a view to ensure implementation of the settlement, a notice of demand was issued to the appellants by the Labour commissioner for payment of the VDA to th workmen for the period 1-7-88 to 28-2-91. An order for payment of Rs. 2, 14,990.30 P. towards the VDA for the period 1-3-91 to 30-9-91 was also issued. Coercieve process for recovery of Rs. 29,720/- as arrears of VDA between 1-7-88 and 28-2-91 was initiated.
(2.)The appellants are sister concerns. Their Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 19-6-1995 upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18-7-1994 dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 19-6-1995.
(3.)On 9th of December, 1986 a settlement was arrived at between the appellants and the employees union relating to service conditions of the workmen for the period 1-4-86 to 30-6-88. The settlement inter alia provided that VDA (variable dearness allowance) shall be paid at Rs. 2/- per point of rise per month beyond AICPI 450 and the wages of the employees were linked with the VDA. The employee union issued a notice of its intention to terminate the settlement with a view to submit a fresh charter of demands on 1-7-88. A fresh charter of demands was submitted by the employees union demanding an increase in the salary etc. on 17-7-88 but it was mentioned therein that the service conditions in force would continue to remain unchanged unless specifically agreed to otherwise. The employees union did not seek and change in the charter of demands in so far as the rate of VDA was concerned. No fresh settlement appears to have been arrived at between the parties but the appellants relying upon the notice of termination and the new charter of demand,s unilaterally freezed VDA with effect from 4-8-88. Negotiations between the employees union and the appellant, did not, however, produce any fresh settlement. The employees union (respondent No. 3) issued a demand notice to the employer on 21-1-91 demanding VDA with effect from 1-7-88. It was claimed that the unilateral freezing of the VDA was illegal and that the obligations in the settlement dated 9-12-1986 were in force and binding on the parties. The employees union, it appears apart from filing an application before the authorities under the payment of Wages Act alleging illegal deduction from wages, also approached the State Government for issuance of the recovery certificate for the arrears of VDA. The Labour Commissioner, on behalf of the State Government, issued a notice to the appellants on the application filed by the employees union with regard to the payment of VDA on 14-5-91. The appellants were required by the Labour Commissioner to reply to the claims of the respondent union. The appellants took the stand in their reply that the settlement of 1986 stood terminated and referred to the letter of the employees union dated 1-7-88 conveying their intention to terminate the settlement and the fresh charter of demands. The appellants further resisted the claim of the union inter alia by taking the plea that there was an oral agreement arrived at between the parties to freeze the VDA at June, 1988 point and therefore the claim of the employees union was untenable. The appellants, however, produced no evidence in support of its plea of oral agreement. The Labour Commissioner found that no oral agreement had been proved and that obligation of the employer to pay the VDA under the 1986 continued to be in force and with a view to ensure implementation of the settlement, a notice of demand was issued to the appellants by the Labour commissioner for payment of the VDA to th workmen for the period 1-7-88 to 28-2-91. An order for payment of Rs. 2, 14,990.30 P. towards the VDA for the period 1-3-91 to 30-9-91 was also issued. Coercieve process for recovery of Rs. 29,720/- as arrears of VDA between 1-7-88 and 28-2-91 was initiated.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.