- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri J. N. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C. B. Gupta, for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Miss. Bushra Marium for respondent No. 5.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letters/orders dated 8th June, 2004, 26th June, 2004 and 1st July, 2004 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, U. P. , Allahabad Region, Allahabad. Facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition, briefly stated, are; petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and has industrial establishment at Iradatganj, Ghoorpur, district Allahabad. The petitioner had been running five industrial units for manufacturing glass of different kinds. One of its plant, namely Plant No. 1 caught fire on 14th May, 1998 due to which structure of plant including machinery and furnace was destroyed. The management agreed to adjust 250 workers of Plant No. 1 in other plants temporarily for some time. Notice for closure of PPG plant (Plant No. 1) was given to the workers. The Union objected the closure and conciliation proceedings started before the Industrial Labour Commissioner. During conciliation an agreement on 9th August, 2002 was entered that all 250 workers of the plant will be paid off fully and finally in phases. Settlement dated 9th August, 2002 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Acting on the settlement 44 workers were paid off. Again notice was given for 80 workers who were to be finally paid off, the said 80 workers refused to accept the payment. The matter came before the Labour Commissioner for discussion, no fruitful decision could be taken by the Labour Commissioner. Respondent No. 5 staged Dharna and other forms of demonstration. The management approached the district administration and other labour authorities to intervene in the matter. The conciliation proceedings again started and on 20th February, 2004 two agreements took place between the management and the workers through their Union. The said settlement was with regard to payment of allowance from July, 2003, ad-hoc increase in pay and increase in dearness allowance and other related matters. By another settlement it was decided that these 80 workers whose services were terminated by notice dated 23-1-2004 with effect from 24-1- 2004 shall continue in service as earlier and the said dispute shall be referred to arbitration and one Sri R. N. Ram, Additional Labour Commissioner was appointed as arbitrator who was required to give his award after hearing the parties within two months. It was also settled that the said 80 workers will not indulge in any unwanted activity in the factory and the agitation continuing on the main gate of the establishment shall be immediately terminated. The notices dated 16th February, 2004 and 19th February, 2004 given by the management for closure of Plants No. 3 and 4 were withdrawn. The case of the petitioner further is that although the workers allowed entry of furnace oil but the furnace of Plant No. 5 which had been cooled down due to obstruction of oil by the Union, collapsed in the night of 23rd/24th February, 2004. The petitioner decided to cancel the agreement dated 20th February, 2004 and informed the Union by letter dated 26th February, 2004 copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Again a closure notice is said to have been given on 26th February, 2003. The respondent Union represented the matter to the Additional Labour Commissioner for enforcing the settlement dated 20th February, 2004. The letter dated 8th June, 2004 was written by the Additional Labour Commissioner directing the management to implement the agreement dated 20th February, 2004 and pay the workers arrears within a week. The management wrote to the Additional Labour Commissioner on 14th June, 2004 informing that unfortunate decision has to be taken by the management to cancel the agreement dated 20th February, 2004, hence there is no basis for implementing the agreement. It was stated in the letter that on account of agitation, in-discipline and strike of the workers, the management has suffered loss of crores of rupees due to which two plants had earlier been closed. The State Government vide its letter dated 22nd May, 2004 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal as to whether termination of 80 workers vide notice dated 23rd January, 2004 with effect from 24th January, 2004 and termination of 122 workers vide notice dated 24th February, 2004 with effect from 1st March, 2004 is valid or not and if not to what relief the workers are entitled. The Additional Labour Commissioner again directed vide letter dated 26th June, 2004 to the petitioner to implement the tripartite agreement dated 20th February, 2004. The petitioner again tried to explain its stand by letter dated 2nd July, 2004 and ultimately by letter dated 1st July, 2004 which was received by the petitioner on 3rd July, 2004, the Additional Labour Commissioner directed the petitioner to make payment to the workers in accordance with the tripartite agreement dated 20th February, 2004. The writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid three letters issued by respondent No. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 5 in which power of petitioner to unilaterally deny the implementation of agreement dated 20th February, 2004 has been challenged. The agitation and Dharna made by the workers has been sought to be justified. It has been stated that settlement dated 20th February, 2004 has been lodged peacefully during conciliation proceeding. It has further been stated that closure of Plant No. 5 was without prior permission from the appropriate Government as required by Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act ). It has been stated that respondent-Union correctly represented to Additional Labour Commissioner and requested him to see that settlement dated 20th February, 2004 be implemented. Reference by the State Government regarding dispute of 80 workers for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal has not been denied. It has been contended that Tribunal is not functioning for more than three months. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit reiterating its stand as taken in the writ petition justifying its actions. It has been reiterated that Additional Labour Commissioner has no power to issue directions as contained in the impugned orders. It has further been contended that reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered.
(3.) THE dispute between the parties centres round the agreement dated 20th February, 2004 claim to have been entered during conciliation proceeding and enforceability of the said agreement. Sri J. N. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has raised following submissions in support of the writ petition: (i) the agreement dated 20th February, 2004 has been cancelled by the petitioner vide its notice dated 26th February, 2004, hence it cannot be enforced against the petitioner. The petitioner has right to cancel the agreement at any point of time since enforcement of it had become impossible. (ii) agreement dated 20th February, 2004 is not enforceable in law since no orders have been passed by the State Government under Rule 5 (4) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the agreement not being enforceable, the Additional Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue any direction for implementation of the agreement. (iii) the State Government having already referred the dispute pertaining to 80 workers vide reference order dated 22nd May, 2004, till the dispute is adjudicated by the Tribunal, no direction can be issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner for enforcement of agreement dated 20th February, 2004.;