D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) This appeal has since been preferred against an order dated 8th June 2004 passed in W.P. No. 1017(W) of 2004 (A.S.T. 389 of 2004) by the learned single Judge. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition relates to a proposal recorded in the meeting held on 23rd February 2004 objected to by the writ petitioner, allegedly in violation of the agreement evidenced in the meeting dated 15th April 1998 and 5th May 1998, at page 23-A where 44 hours per week as normal working hours was approved with effect from 1st January 1998 and overtime for increasing production was extended up to 54 hours a week. This was, however made subject to the review and revision after consultations with the unions and associations and based on the demand supply gap then prevailing. The minutes dated 5th May 1998 records that the 54 hours per week was sought to be implemented with effect from 1st June 1998 subject to making consumables available for smooth working. The question of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission was proposed to be thrashed out through representation to be made by the employees concerned to the Government. It is contended that such representation was made but the Government did not agree.
(2.) On earlier occasion the working hours was increased from 37 hours per week to 44 hours per week in respect of which a notice under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was issued on 16th January 1988. However, no such notice with regard to the implementation of the minutes dated 15th April 1998 and 5th May 1998 has been shown to us. However, in his usual fairness Mr. Mitra admitted that the normal working hours is 44 hours and that there is a dispute with regard to 19% compensation for enhancement of the normal working hours from 37 hours to 44 hours per week which is yet to be thrashed out. He also admitted that single pay was allowed up to 48 hours above 44 hours per week and that above 48 hours up to 54 hours per week was on double pay. 1. However, within the scope of this writ petition, we cannot look into that aspect of the dispute between the parties. It is only the proposal pursuant to the meeting held on 23rd February 2004 allegedly enhancing normal working hours from 44 hours to 48 hours, which is under challenge. This minute is at page 143 of the stay application. Therefrom it appears that it was proposed to reduce the present working hours from 54 hours a week to 48 hours a week with effect from 1st April 2004. Mr. Mitra points out that though the language has been used in the said proposal conversely but in effect it cannot be reduction of working hours to 48 hours a week when admittedly normal working hours was 44 hours a week. This minute also records that the demand for 19% compensation for difference of working hours between 37 and 44 hours a week was turned down by the Ministry of Finance through its letter dated 9th May 2001 conveyed to the union. It also records that these 48 hours a week has been fixed due to reduction of requirements pointed out by the Reserve Bank of India for 2004-05. 2. This proposal was challenged before the Bombay High Court in a writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 2261 of 2004 wherein an adinterim order was granted in terms of prayer (d) t.e restraining the respondents from implementing/executing the notice dated 15th March 2004 issued by the General Manager till 19% compensation for the increased working hours between 37 and 44 hours a week is made available. This 15th March notice was issued on the basis of the proposal dated 23rd February 2004. 3. On a similar challenge being made be fore the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 6117 of 2004, by an order dated 27th August 2004, the Andhra Pradesh High Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing maintenance of status quo as obtaining on the date of the order since the petitioners therein were willing to work without double payment in order to enable the union to pursue its remedy before the Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (1947 Act), namely Conciliation Officer, where a proceeding was pending with direction to Conciliation Officer to dispose of the same expeditiously. It may be noted that this order of status quo was passed following the decision of this High Court (Calcutta) in W.P. No. 10172 (W) of 2004 out of which the present appeal arises. 4. In the said writ petition [W.P. No. 10172 (W) of 2004], by the order appealed against, the learned single Judge was pleased to hold that the jurisdiction of this Court is not excluded by reason of section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (1985 Act) and take a view that the writ petitioners do not come within the purview of section 14 of the 1985 Act.
(3.) Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, has taken three grounds. First, that in an earlier proceeding between the parties, a learned single Judge of this Court had taken the view in its order dated 7th January 1991 passed in C.O. No. 9523 (W) of 1988 between the parties herein that the writ petitioners are amenable to section 14 of the 1985 Act and as such the jurisdiction of Court is excluded. The appeal against this decision was withdrawn by the writ petitioners therein (employees' union). Therefore, this decision operates as res judicata as between the parties with regard to the question of maintainability of the writ petition before the Court. 1. The second ground he has taken is that even on a correct interpretation of section 14 read with section 28 of the 1985 Act, the jurisdiction of this Court stands excluded since the writ petitioners come within the purview of section 14 of the said Act. 2. The third ground he has taken is that the question involved in this case is related to an industrial dispute between the parties. Whether the said proposal effects change in the conditions of service or not is the question, which is to be decided by this Court. There being an alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal which is more efficacious, this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot decide the question. When it is a dispute, which can be decided on various factors dependant on certain facts to be adjudicated by the industrial forum on the Justification of the policy decision adopted by the appellant, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition. Respondent's submission:;