HARISH CHANDER Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the grant of service benefit to some of the workmen on account of not going on strike and on their undertaking not go on strike in future and if they would, the benefit would be withdrawn, amount to unfair labour practice.

(2.) The petitioners Harish Chander and others are members of the non-teaching staff of the Kurukshetra University. Petitioner No. 20 is the Association of the employees of the University known as Kurukshetra University Non-teaching Employees Association. On serving a demand notice on the University on July 21, 1986 (Annexure P-1) and after holding certain negotiations, the employees of the University went on strike. The period of strike is from September 5, 1986 to November 29, 1986. Annexure P-2 is the letter from the University which is to the effect that the Vice Chancellor had considered the demands and approved. This letter was addressed to Professor of Commerce of the University, Mr. Hooda, who further informed the employees vide letter, Annexure P-3, about the acceptance of some of the demands. Both these letters are dated November 26, 1986. Vide Annexure P-4, the Vice Chancellor of the University allowed benefit of two increments to Class IV employees and one increment to other employees up to the level of the Superintendents who performed their duties sincerely and did not participate in the strike. Similar benefits were given to those employees who were at the maximum of the grade. These benefits were subject to the following condition which is reproduced from P-4 dated September 30, 1986 :-

(3.) The employees have a right, which is well recognised, to go on strike on a matter involving their service conditions which is known as collective bargaining. This right cannot be jeopardised by the management either by threatening the employees not to go on strike or alluring them with service benefits with the directions that those benefits would be withdrawn if they would go on strike. On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent University is that service benefits of increments to the employees who did not participate in the strike is by way of incentive since they worked sincerely and they also did the work of those employees who had gone on strike. The undertaking to be given by such employees is not at all violative of any provisions of the Act or the service conditions.