- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) IT has been submitted that the petitioner Union is one of the registered Unions in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, with Registration No.3846. With regard to the participation of the employees in the respondent institution, a scheme had been formulated. Accordingly, the participation of the employees would be through the Unions in three phases, 1) The joint committee at the Apex National Level 2) The Plant council in each manufacturing unit 3) The Shop council in each major areas of work in the various plants. The election of members to the Joint Committee is by a secret ballot. The objectives of the Joint Committee is to help in the implementation of the policies, after due discussions and by arriving at a consensus amongst the representatives of the employees regarding the revision of pay structures, allowances, incentives, leave facilities and other benefits, which the employees are entitled to. Though the petitioner Union had been representing the cause of the employees in the Joint Committee from the year 1973 to 1996, the petitioner Union was not elected as a representative therein. It has also been stated that according to the scheme, the issues relating to the employees is to be dealt with by the Joint Committee based on the consensus of all the members of the Committee. However, the Joint Committee, in its meeting held, on 12.9.2000, had reached a memorandum of understanding relating to certain demands submitted by the Unions. According to the said memorandum, a Sub Committee had been appointed to deal with the demands relating to the salaries of certain grades of employees. The Sub Committee had filed a report regarding the revision of the pay scales of the employees. However, the said report contains many anomalies and irregularities. Even though the report of the Sub Committee had not been approved by the Joint Committee, the management of the respondent had started to implement the unapproved report of the Sub Committee by its Circular No.AA/PER/508A, dated 7.12.2000/Corporate Personnel Circular No.053/IRX/2000, creating anomalies in the existing pay scales of the employees. In such circumstances, the petitioner Union has filed the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though no counter affidavit has been filed in the above writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the respondent organization has around 52,000 employees out of whom 35,000 are workmen. To discuss the issues relating to the interests of workmen, an Apex Level bi-partite forum, namely, the Joint Committee for BHEL, had been formed and it has been functioning since 1973. The Joint Committee had concluded five Wage Revision Agreements before the present proposal had been made. The decisions of the Joint Committee are arrived at by consensus and they are applicable to all the workmen of the respondent organization. Even though the Joint Committee had negotiated the Wage Revision of certain categories of workmen, with regard to the others a Sub Committee had been formed to revise their scales of pay. The majority of Unions had accepted the report of the Joint Committee and the Sub Committee. The revised scales of pay, as fixed by the Sub Committee, had been announced vide Circular No.053/IRX/2000, dated 7.12.2000. The said Circular had already been implemented and the revised scales of pay had been made and the arrears due to the employees have also been paid in the month December, 2000. All employees have accepted the payments. The petitioner Union has also accepted the revised wages and arrears. Since the Central Trade Union Leaders of the petitioner Union (IIMS) has signed the report of the Sub Committee, the petitioner Union is estopped from questioning the report of the Sub Committee. Even otherwise, the petitioner Union has an efficacious alternative remedy, by invoking the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner Union, is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) AT this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court an order, dated 13.3.2001, made in W.P.No.22016 of 2000, wherein, the issues arising before this Court, in the present writ petition, have already been decided. It has also been stated that the said order, dated 13.3.2001, has become final. By its order, dated 13.3.2001, this Court had held that it is open to the petitioner Union to invoke the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to seek for the relief-s as prayed for in the writ petition, since certain disputed questions of fact are to be decided. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the relief-s, as prayed for in the writ petition, as decided by this Court in W.P.No.22016 of 2000. It is open to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if there is any grievance, with regard to the revision of pay scales and the wage revision, in view of the recommendations of the Joint Committee and the report of the Sub Committee, constituted in accordance with scheme relating to the participation of the employees in the management of the respondent organization. Further, it is seen that the wage revision and the fixation of pay scales have been accepted by most of the Unions and it has been implemented in the respondent organization. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Union is liable to fail. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.;