JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by five employees of Katni Fire Bricks and Pottery Works, owned by the Associated Companies Ltd. , and it seeks to challenge an award dated November 15, 1972 made by the State Industrial Court, Indore, by which Dearness allowance payable to employees has been reduced.
(2.)THE facts material for decision of the petition are that the Dearness allowance to daily rated workman was provided for by an agreement dated december 9, 1963 between the management and the Cement Mazdoor Panchayat which was then the representative Union of the Workmen. By this agreement the parties agreed to a variable Dearness allowance linked to the jabalpur Cost of living Index taking the year 1949 as the base. The Dearness allowance was faxed at Rs. 52/- at Index 141 and for every rise or fall of 3 points over the datum Index of 141 the rate of variation was fixed at 14. 7 Paise per day. This agreement was subsequently extended to other workmen. In january 1966 there was a modification in one clause of the agreement which dealt with grain concession. In 1969 the management contended that the formula for increase in Dearness allowance provided in the agreement of 1963 was erroneous as it worked out to 206% neutralisation when the workmen were not entitled to more than 100% neutralisation, that it imposed a crushing financial liability and that it was also not justified on industry cum region basis. The management terminated the agreement by issuing a notice dated january 13, 1969 under section 99 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which was followed by a notice of change in March 1969. The employees were not agreeable to any change in the Dearness allowance which gave rise to an industrial dispute. Eventually, the State Government on August 4, 1969 referred the dispute relating to the reduction of Dearness allowance and its rate to the Industrial Court, Indore.
(3.)BY its award delivered on November 15, 1971, the Industrial Court held that the formula contained in the agreement of 1963 for variation of dearness allowance resulted in granting 206% neutralisation when the employees could at the most get 100% neutralisation, that the said formula was unfair and erroneous and it could not be justified even on industry cum region basis, and that it imposed a heavy financial burden on the resources of the industry. On these findings the Industrial Court awarded that the employees shall be entitled in future to dearness allowance at the rate of 7 paise per day per unit of every 3 points rise in the cost of living index over the datum figure 141 which will secure to them 100% neutralisation. In the proceedings before the Industrial Court the employees were first represented by the Pottery mazdoor Panchayat which was then the representative Union. During the pendency of the proceedings, Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat ceased to be the representative Union and Katni Pottery Karamchari Sangh became the representative Union in its place and the employees were represented by this Union. The karmachari Sangh then filed a miscellaneous petition under Article 226 of the constitution (M. P. No. 689 of 1971 ) challenging the award. This petition was dismissed in motion by another Division Bench of this Court on December 6, 1967. In dismissing the petition, the learned Judges passed the following order:
"this is a petition against an award by which the Dearness Allowance has been considered on merits and 100% neutralisation has been allowed by the Award. These are all matters of fact and the decision is given after the application of the Full Bench formula in all its aspects. We see no reason to interfere in that matter. The only other ground argued was that the notice of termination had not been given to the petitioner Katni Pottery Karmachari Sangh. This Karmachari Sangh was not a representative body when the notice was given. Consequently there was no question of the notice being served on this Sangh. There is no force in this writ petition. It is rejected. "
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.