Civil Writ Petition No. 7345 of 2013. Case: M/s. India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Others. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Civil Writ Petition No. 7345 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate |
| Judges | Rajiv Narain Raina, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 39(d); Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10, 12(3), 17, 2(k), 2(p), 33C(2) |
| Citation | 2014 LabIC 53, 2013 (IV) LLJ 222 P&H, 2013 (4) SCT 293 (P&H) |
| Judgement Date | April 25, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
-
A joint demand notice dated 23.4.2009 was served by the Union of Workers at the Faridabad factory of petitioner company-India Yamaha Pvt. Limited which came to be registered as Industrial Reference No. 244 of 2009, after conciliation failed. A rather interesting dispute was referred to the Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad by the appropriate Government by order dated 22.7.2009 for adjudication which reads:
Whether the workers working at Faridabad plant of M/s India Yamaha Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad are entitled to ad-hoc allowance in parity with ad-hoc allowance admissible and being paid to transferees from the plant at Surajpur performing similar work of production of same product, in suppression of existing settlement.
If so what relief and with what details
The genesis of the dispute came about in the following manner: The petitioner-company has two units one at Faridabad (Haryana) and other at Surajpur, Uttar Pradesh under the same corporate management. The unit at Faridabad at one time produced motorcycles sold under the brand name 'Rajdoot' while the unit at Surajpur produced 'Yamaha' motorcycles. Both the establishments had their separate registered trade unions one in Haryana and the other in Uttar Pradesh. These unions were affiliated to the Hind Majdoor Sabha. As disputes and differences kept arising between the management and the union of workers, different settlements were arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") from time to time during the conciliation process. The earliest settlement at Faridabad was entered into between the parties on 13.4.1994 and at Surajpur on 25.8.1994.
-
The first important settlement for purposes of decision in this case was arrived at in Surajpur on 26.9.1999. As per clause 4.10 an Ad-hoc Allowance was made admissible for workers at the Faridabad unit to be paid in the following terms settled by the parties:
All regular workmen as on the rolls of the company on the date of signing of settlement shall be entitled to Ad-hoc allowance of ` 1620/- pm. However the workmen engaged in indirect areas who have been in the receipt of efficiency payment @ 70% shall be eligible to receive the Ad-hoc allowance in the same proportion viz Rs. 1134/- pm.
-
In 1999 a separate settlement was also arrived at between the petitioner-management and the union of workers in the unit at Surajpur, Uttar Pradesh with respect to the Ad-hoc Allowance in the following terms:
4.10 AD-HOC ALLOWANCE
All regular workmen as on the rolls of the company on the date of signing of settlement shall be entitled to Ad-hoc allowance of ` 3850/- pm. However, the workmen engaged in indirect areas who have been in the receipt of efficiency payment @ 70% shall be eligible to receive the Adhoc allowance in the same proportion viz Rs. 2695/- pm.
-
Clause 2.3.10.3 of the memorandum of settlement of 1999 at Faridabad dealt with transfers etc. and reads as follows:
The workmen shall be liable to be transferred/shifted/redeployed from one machine/workplace/section/department/division/company to another as per needs of the company or it's subsidiary/associate/holding companies subject to the condition that the wages, seniority and retirement benefits of the workman are not adversely affected, at that point in time. However, benefits and special allowance specifically given only for working in the previous company/location/dept./work station will not be protected unless also specified for the new location/dept/workstation.
-
The corresponding provision in the settlement at Surajpur was also 2.3.10.3 and was identical with the sister concern at Faridabad.
-
After the settlement of 1999 arrived at and its terms put in operation, still further fresh disputes arose which were settled once again under Section 12(3) of the Act in 2002 with which we are not presently concerned. Thereafter, another set of settlements were hammered in 2007 to resolve further disputes arising meanwhile, on 26.2.2007 at the Surajpur unit and on 28.2.2007 at the Faridabad unit.
-
These settlements resolved the charter of demands both dated 15.12.2005 served in their respective territories. However, what is of importance is that neither the 2002 nor 2007 settlements talk about ad-hoc allowance which right continued to be governed by the 1999 settlements in the respective units. However, what requires to be noticed is that in the 1999 settlements what was agreed to between the parties was to dismantle all the existing efficiency payment schemes, production incentive schemes or super incentive schemes or any other scheme by whatever name called providing for additional payment connected with the level of production and productivity and to replace those schemes by a consolidated scheme or what came to be called the ad-hoc allowance. It is ad hoc allowance which became the bone of contention before the labour Court in the above reproduced reference resulting in the award impugned in this petition by the management.
-
The formula applied for working out the single window ad-hoc allowance was based on monthly average of the highest earning during the past four financial years from April 1994 to March 1998 in the respective units. The amount so calculated was protected at Rs. 3820/- per month for the workers at Surajpur, Uttar Pradesh and Rs. 1620/- per month for existing workmen at Faridabad on the touchstone of production/productivity of each unit measured separately. Clause 5.4 of the 1999 settlements laid down that the ad-hoc allowance so determined will remain fixed for each existing workman irrespective of redeployment in any new work area/unit in future, subject to the condition, however that if any indirect workman becomes direct workman as defined in Annexure P-5 to the settlement, he will get adhoc allowance as applicable to direct workman of his parent division as on date of agreement. Likewise, a direct workman being redeployed/transferred to an indirect job will get ad-hoc allowance as admissible to indirect workmen of his parent division as on date of agreement.
-
It is not disputed that all categories of workmen covered by this case were existing and direct workmen. In this case we are not concerned with indirect workmen.
-
That apart, there was another settlement arrived at in 2010 between the parties with which also admittedly we are not presently concerned since it was entered into after the reference was made in the present case for adjudication in 2009, therefore, the earlier settlements and especially the 1999 settlements would remain applicable and operative on both the parties insofar as ad-hoc allowance is concerned.
The present controversy
-
In the year 2002, the production of 'Rajdoot' motorcycle in the Faridabad plant was stopped. It is alleged that this plant was turned into a manufacturing unit of ancillary parts which would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial