High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-04-10Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P8 award set aside;...

Cochin Refineries Officers' Association & others v. BPCL-Kochi Refinery & others

Case / Petition Number:OP(LC).No. 812 of 2010 (O) & W.P(C) No.1857 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Chitambaresh
Judgment Date: 2013-04-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P8 award in I.D No.25/2007 set aside; matter to be re-adjudicated by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Ernakulam with a view to final disposal within six months.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P8 award set aside; remitted to Industrial Tribunal for fresh merits adjudication within six months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Cochin Refineries Officers' Association (Reg. No. 373/72), Kochi Refinery, Ambalamughal, represented by General Secretary
T. Balakrishnan, Badge No.1246, Utility Engineer, Officer Grade A, BPCL-Kochi Refinery, Ambalamughal
Cochin Refineries Workers' Association (Reg. No. 7-82/91), Ambalamughal, BPCL-Kochi Refinery Kochi, represented by General Secretary

Respondents

BPCL - Kochi Refinery, Ambalamughal, Kochi represented by Managing Director
General Manager(HR) BPCL-Kochi Refinery, Ambalamughal, Kochi 682 302
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam
Addl. R4: General Secretary, Kochin Refinery Employees' Union, Ambalamughal, Kochi-682032

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan
• Sri.T.V.Jayakumar Namboodiri
• Sri.Thushar Nirmal Sarathy
• Sri.M.M.Vinod Kumar
• Sri.P.K.Rakesh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, ASG of India
• Sri.E.K.Nandakumar
• Sri.A.K.Jayasankar Nambiar
• Sri.K.John Mathai
• Sri.P.Benny Thomas
• Sri.P.Gopinath
• Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, SC
• Govt. Pleader: Sri/Sm. Lisha M.G

Case Synopsis & Summary

This matter concerns the interpretation of Clauses 13 and 14 of Ext.P1, the 2002 memorandum of settlement, between BPCL-Kochi Refinery and its workmen, in the context of officers promoted from among the workmen. The petitioners—the Cochin Refineries Officers' Association, a promotion-affected officer, and the Cochin Refineries Workers' Association—argue that the memorandum extends to officers and that, on promotion, there is a reduction in basic pay contrary to the settlement’s spirit. The respondents contend that Ext.P1 applies only to workmen and that total emoluments do not decrease on promotion, so no violation occurs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal had held that officers are not workmen and thus not entitled to industrial relief, a conclusion the High Court found untenable. The Court emphasized a “community of interest” in emolument structures between workmen and officers at the first promoted post and held that the dispute is maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act. Observing merit in the arguments, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s award (Ext.P8 in I.D. No.25/2007) and directed a fresh merits examination, ensuring opportunity to both sides, with a goal of final disposal within six months. The writ petitions were allowed and the matter remitted for re-adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Industrial Disputes Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Community of interest between workmen and officers (doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that Clauses 13 and 14 of Ext.P1 bind the management to the spirit of pay parity for officers promoted from workmen. They argue that, when total emoluments are considered, there is a reduction in basic pay on promotion, violating the memorandum’s intent. Ext.P1, they submit, is not limited to workmen and creates a binding obligation on pay structures; the contention of non-workmen status for officers defeats a remedy under the ID Act, contrary to earlier judgments cited to emphasize inter-group interests and potential maintainability of disputes.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Ext.P1 pertains only to workmen; officers promoted from the workmen cadre are not bound by the settlement. Clause 13/14 provide benefits for workmen, and the total emoluments are not reduced on promotion. The Tribunal correctly found that officers are not 'workmen' for purposes of the ID Act. They argue there is no established ‘community of interest’ to compel a dispute under the ID Act, and the court should not extend the settlement beyond its clear scope. The maintenance and final determination of the dispute must rest on the ID Act framework, not on a general equity claim that would render the settlement universal.”

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate	AIR 1958 SC 353	Positive	Cited to support that industrial disputes can be maintainable where there is a community of interest between workers and promoted cadres, beyond strict 'workmen' status.
Management of the Indian Bank, Madras-1 v. Industrial Tribunal (Central Government), Madras	(1977) 1 LLJ 343	Positive	Cited as authority for maintainability of disputes via the ID Act in appropriate contexts.
All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association v. Reserve Bank of India and another	(1965) 2 LLJ 175	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle of community of interest impacting maintainability.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Cochin Refineries Officers' Association & others v. BPCL-Kochi Refinery & others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935** ## **OP(LC).No. 812 of 2010 (O) ---------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ID.25/2007 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:** **--------------------------------------------------** **1. COCHIN REFINERIES OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, (REG.NO.373/72), KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGHAL REP.BY GENERAL SECRETARY.** **2. T.BALAKRISHNAN,BADGE NO.1246, UTILITY ENGINEER, OFFICER GRADE A, BPCL-KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGHAL.** **3. COCHIN REFINERIES WORKERS ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.7-82/91, AMBALAMUGHAL, BPCL-KOCHI REFINERY KOCHI, REP.BY GENERAL SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. BPCL -KOCHI REFINERY,AMBALAMUGHAL, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN 682 302.** **2. GENERAL MANAGER(HR) BPCL-KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGHAL, KOCHI 682 302.** **3. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **4. * ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED** - **GENERAL SECRETARY KOCHIN REFINERIES EMPLOYEES UNION AMBALAMUGHAL. KOCHI-682032** **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 6-4-2011 IN I.A. NO.5944/2011 IN O.P(LC) NO.812/2010** **OP(LC).No. 812 of 2010 (O)** **-2-** **R,R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R,R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR R,R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR R,R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R,R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R,R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LISHA M.G.** **THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2013 ALONG WITH W.P.C. NO. 1857/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(LC).No. 812 of 2010 (O)** **-3-** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 18-7-2002.** **EXT.P2 COPY OF the LETTER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ASSOCIATION DATED 221-2003 REQUESTED THE MANAGEMENT TO CURE THE ANOMALY** **EXT.P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24-6-2004 TO THE GENERAL MANAGER (HRM) KRL.** - **EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24-6-2004 T THE GENERAL MANAGER (HRM)KRL.** **EXT.P5 COPY OF the JUDGMENT IN W.PC. NO.15632/2005 DATED 20-1-2006** - **EXT.P6 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OS WW1 DATED 2-6-2010' EXT.P7 COPY OF the DEPOSITION OF MW1 DATED 13-7-2010** - **EXT.P8 COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D N. 25/07 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 27-82010** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS** - **EXT.R1(a) COPY OF the CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 7-12-2007 FILED BY the 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN I.D NO.25/2007** **EXT.R1(b) COPY OF the WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 28-5-2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN I.D 25/2007** - **EXT.R1(c) COPY OF the STATEMENT SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE IN DA RATES OF OFFICERS AND WORKMEN IN EACH QUARTER WITH EFFECT FROM 1-81998 (JUL- SEP.1998)** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** **SMM** ## **V.CHITAMBARESH,J.** = = = = = = = = = = = O.P **(LC) No.812 of 2010 & W.P(C) No.1857 of 2011** = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013 ## **J U D G M E N T** Both the writ petitions are connected and stem out of the same award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal . I shall refer to the parties and exhibits in O.P (LC)No.812/2010 for the sake of convenience. 2. The issue pertains to the interpretation of Clauses 13 and 14 of Ext.P1 memorandum of settlement entered into between the workmen and management. The officers who were promoted from the cadre of workmen had earlier filed W.P(C) No.15632/2005 on the file of this Court. The writ petition was dismissed observing that the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act has to be persued. The workmen thereafter raised a dispute which was adjudicated as ID No.25/2007 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. 3. The grievance in essence of the workmen is that there is a decrease in basic pay on their promotion as officers. This O.P **(LC) No.812 of 2010 W.P(C) No.1857 of 2011** 2 according to them runs contrary to Ext.P1 settlement entered into between the workmen and the management. The management on the other hand maintains that there is no decrease in monitory benefits when total emoluments are reckoned to an officer. It is also contended that Ext.P1 memorandum of settlement applies only to workmen and not to officers who are promoted. 4. The Industrial Tribunal has held that the officers are not workmen who alone are entitled to raise an industrial dispute of this nature. This I am afraid cannot be countenanced for two reasons . They are : i) The workers were already relegated to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act by the judgment in W.P(C) No.15632/2005. ii) There is a community of interest between the workmen and the officers in regard to the payment of emoluments to the first line of promoted post and hence an industrial dispute is maintainable. **(See. Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (AIR 1958 Supreme Court 353) , Management of the Indian Bank, Madras-1 vs. Industrial Tribunal (Central Government) Madras and** ## O.P **(LC) No.812 of 2010 W.P(C) No.1857 of 2011** 3 **another (1977 (1) LLJ 343 & All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association and another vs. Reserve Bank of India and another ( 1965 (2) LLJ 175)** Therefore the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the industrial dispute cannot be raised in the instant case is untenable and is accordingly set aside. 5. There is however a finding on merits by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the workmen which is strongly impugned by the management in W.P(C)No.1857 of 2011. The management asserts that the benefit of Clauses 13 and 14 would apply to workmen only especially when Ext.P1 settlement pertains only to workmen. It is also the case of the management that Clause 14 applies in addition to Clause 13 in the case of grade promotion to the workmen only. This precise question has not been considered by the Industrial Tribunal in the perspective in which it is raised in the writ petitions. Therefore the matter needs a re-look by the Industrial Tribunal on the merits of the industrial dispute as well in the case on hand. 6. I allow both the writ petitions and set aside Ext.P8 award in I.D No.25/2007 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Industrial Tribunal shall O.P **(LC) No.812 of 2010 W.P(C) No.1857 of 2011** 4 make every endeavour to dispose of the case finally after affording sufficient opportunity to either parties within a period of six months. The writ petitions are disposed of ## **V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE** smm O.P **(LC) No.812 of 2010 W.P(C) No.1857 of 2011** 5