Shyni M.C. Edanilayam and others v. Steripharma and Labour Court, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 2400 of 2008 (I)** **-------------------------CP.92/2004 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **1. SHYNI M.C. EDANILAYAM HOUSE,** - **KARIMALOOR P.O., THATTAMPADY, ALUVA.** **2. SOUMYA K.N., KAIPPILLIKKATTIL HOUSE, CHANDANAKAMPURA P.O. MAVUMCHAL, KANNUR.** **3. SHEEBA PAUL, C/O.T.V.MATHEW, THURUTHEL HOUSE, KODIKULAM P.O., THODUPUZHA.** **4. ANISHA KUMARI.G., PUTHANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA P.O. ALAPUZHA.** **5. KRISHNAKUMARI K.K., KOLEZHATHU HOUSE, PERUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA.** **6. VINEETHA K.K., VIJITHALAYAM HOUSE, KANNANKERI, CSEZ P.O., CHITTETHUKARA.** **7. AJITHA K.K., KALATHIL HOUSE,** - **THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA P.O., PUTHIYAKAVU.** **8. SINI.C.K., CHATHANANCHIRA HOUSE,** - **THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM.** **9. LEKHA K.P., KUNJANPARAMBIL HOUSE,** - **PERUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA.** **10. REMA.A.D., ADACKATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,** - **INCHIYANI P.O., PARATHODU, KOTTAYAM.** **11. DHANYA V.P., VARAKKATTU LAKSHAM VEEDU, PARUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA.** **12. SANDHYA K., MADATHILKUTTIYIL HOUSE, PERINGALIPURAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA.** **CONTD..2** **-2-** **13. SABY K.K., KALASSERI HOUSE, MANOOR P.O KUTTAPANTHARA, KOTTAYAM.** **14. SUNITHA P.M., PAZHAMBANAVELY HOUSE,** - **PERUMBALAM P.O. CHERTHALA.** **15. SUMITHA P.M., PAZHAMBANAVELY HOUSE, PERUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. STERIPHARMA, PLOT NO.16 A.B. BLOCK,** - **CSEZ, KAKKANAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **2. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **R,R1 BY SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM R,R1 BY SRI.BIJU MARTIN R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1402-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **JM** ## **WPC NO. 2400 OF 2008** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 11TH PETITIONER** - **P2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **P3: COPY of the MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DT. 21.12.02** - **P4: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND CONFIRMATION ORDER OF SHYAMINI M.P DT. 20.01.03** - **P5: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT AND CONFIRMATION TO SHREJA RAJAN DT. 20.1.2003** - **P6: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF DWI VISHNU NAMBOODIRI DT. 11.4.2007** - **P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.P92/04 DT.25.9.07 OF THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL** ## **\\TRUE COPY\\** ## **PA TO JUDGE** **JM** S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 2400 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2012 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are workmen of the 1[st] respondent company, who became employees of the company after 1.6.2002. The 1[st] respondent entered into Ext.P3 settlement with the unions representing the workmen of the 1[st] respondent company, as per which, the basic wages of all the workmen will be increased by ` 100/- p.m. from 1.6.2002 and ` 75/- each from 6.2.2003, 1.6.2004 and 1.6.2005. When the petitioners were subsequently appointed in the company, they were given appointment orders fixing basic wages less than those calculated in accordance with Ext.P3. The petitioners filed C.P.No.92/2004 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam, claiming basic wages fixed as per Ext.P3. The Labour Court, by Ext.P7 order, rejected their claim on the ground that Ext.P3 settlement is applicable only to the workmen of the factory as on 1.6.2002 and the petitioners having entered service of the 1[st] respondent subsequent to that date, they are not eligible for any benefit of the basic wages as per Ext.P3. Ext.P7 order of the Labour Court is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, once a settlement is entered into between the management and the workmen in the course of conciliation proceedings, that would be applicable not only to the w.p.c.2400/08 - : 2 :- workmen, who were employed in the establishment at the time of settlement but also all persons, who subsequently became the workmen in that establishment and going by the same, the petitioners are also eligible for the benefit of Ext.P3 settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in _**Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Jagannath Pandurang and others**_ , 1975 (4) SCC 690, and _**National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and others**_ , AIR 2000 SC 469, in support of his contention that future workmen are also entitled to the benefit of a settlement entered into between the management and the unions in the course of conciliation proceedings. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent also. 4. The 1[st] respondent would contend that the claim petition under Section 33C(2) itself is not maintainable, since the petitioners have entered service accepting an appointment with specific basic wages and insofar as there is no agreement to give them higher basic wages, no application under Section 33C(2) would lie since their right for higher basic wages has not yet crystallised. It is further submitted that in Ext.P3 it is made abundantly clear that the same is applicable only to the workmen of the factory as on 1.6.2002 and the petitioners having entered service subsequent to 1.6.2002 they cannot claim w.p.c.2400/08 - : 3 :- increased basic wages in accordance with Ext.P3, is the contention raised. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Clause II of Ext.P3 reads thus: ## _II. COVERAGE/APPLICABILITY:_ _The settlement will be applicable to all workmen of the factory as on 1[st] June, 2002.”_ Clause IV of Ext.P3 relates to basic wages, which is the subject matter of the claim petition, which reads as follows: ## _“IV. BASIC WAGES:_ _The Basic wage of all workmen will be increased by Rs. 100/p.m. from 1.6.02 and Rs. 75 each 6.2.2003, 1.6.2004 and 1.6.2005.”_ Going by the same, the settlement itself makes it abundantly clear that the settlement will be applicable to all workmen of the factory as on 1[st] June, 2002. It is open to the management and the unions to agree on any terms in a settlement under Section 18(3). When the parties enter into a negotiated settlement pursuant to the conciliation proceedings that is binding on all workman present or future. Therefore, Clause II in Ext.P3 to the effect that the settlement would be applicable to all those workmen as on 1[st] June, 2002, would be applicable to future workmen also. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners on Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes and the two decisions referred to above would mean only that much and nothing more and an interpretation contrary to the same will lead to anomalous results w.p.c.2400/08 - : 4 :- not intended by the parties. As such, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners. Further, the petitioners entered into service as per the specific appointment orders, wherein the petitioners' basic wages have been specifically fixed. The petitioners joined service accepting that condition. Subsequent to joining service there was no settlement or agreement agreeing to increase their basic wages. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek better wages under Section 33 C(2) of the I.D. Act. 6. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it would be totally unjust that two sets of workers doing the same duties are drawing wages with such disparity. He submits that the principle of equal wages for equal work would be applicable in this case. I am of opinion even assuming that the petitioners can raise such a contention, that can only be in an industrial dispute raised for that purpose and not in a petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioners raising an industrial dispute for their claim for better basic wages. sdk+ ///True copy/// Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE P.A. to Judge w.p.c.2400/08 - : 5 :-