Dismissed

The General Secretary,Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association,H.a.L. Lucknow v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Labour and Employment,New Delhi and 8 Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024WRIC/1688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner union challenged the rejection of its application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the Labour Commissioner closed the application after referring the underlying dispute to the National Tribunal for interpretation of an award. The Court held that since the conciliation proceedings were no longer pending at the time the order was passed, the Section 33-

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed.

The General Secretary,Hindustan Aeronautics… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17669

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1688 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- The General Secretary,Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association,H.A.L. Lucknow Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Govt. Of India Ministry Of Labour And Employment,New Delhi And 8 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Shukla,Ravindra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashwani Kumar Singh,Manish Jauhari,Prakash Kumar Sinha

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4, and Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for respondents no.5 to 9.

¶8

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

¶9

"A. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 6.2.2024 of rejection of application in form-I, submitted under section 33 on 3.11.2023 (Annexure no 1) passed by the respondent no-4, Learned Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow.

¶10

B. to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari, for quashing the impugned notice dated 3.8.2023 issued vide letter no. letter no HAL-ADL/2719/HR-ER/2023/134 and also subsequent letter dated 7.2.2024 issued vide letter no HAL-ADL/2719/HR-ER/2024/217 by respondent no 9 and 8 respectively is attached herewith as Annexure no 2 and 3.

¶11

C. issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no 5 to 9 to not to give effect to the impugned notice of change of service condition For amending the HAL Leave Rules for Workmen dated 3.8.2023 and 7.2.2024 as issued by the Respondent company.

¶12

D. issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no 4, to entertain the application filed on 3.11.2023 under section 33 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and proceed in accordance with law.

¶13

E. Such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

¶14

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-union is that a settlement had been entered into between the petitioner-union and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'HAL') on 03.08.1988. In terms of the said settlement, it was provided that leave encashment for certain number of days would be payable. Subsequent thereto a notice dated 03.08.2023 under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1947'), a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has been issued by the HAL. By the said notice, the HAL intended to change the service condition i.e. for amending the HAL Leave Rules-Leave Encashment - Change in the Methodology of Calculation to the detriment of the employees.

¶15

The petitioner-union initially filed an application for conciliation vide its application dated 08.08.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. The application was filed under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1947 for the purpose of conciliation. The application remained pending. Subsequent thereto, apprehending that the notice issued under Section 9-A of the Act, 1947 with regard to change in service condition was going to be implemented by the HAL, the petitioner-union filed an application dated 03.11.2023 under Rule 59 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1957') read with Sections 33 and 33-A of the Act, 1947.

¶16

The respondent no.4 vide order dated 06.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition, has referred the application filed by the petitioner-union for conciliation to the National Tribunal for interpretation of the award. On the same date, through impugned order dated 06.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the application filed under Section 33A of the Act, 1947 read with Rule 59 of the Rules, 1957 has also been closed.

¶17

Challenging this order dated 06.02.2024 as well as the notice dated 03.08.2023 issued under Section 9-A of the Act, 1947, instant petition has been filed.

¶18

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the conciliation

¶19

proceedings were pending consequently there cannot be any change of the service conditions as has been sought to be affected after issuance of the notice dated 03.08.2023 under Section 9-A of the Act, 1947 and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 whereby the application dated 03.11.2023 has been closed.

¶20

On the other hand, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India, as well as Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for respondents no.5 to 9, have defended the orders impugned on the ground that as of date, change in service conditions has already come into force as would be apparent from perusal of the order dated 07.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is further contended that in case the petitioner-union is aggrieved by change in the service conditions it is always open for the petitioner-union to approach the Labour Court challenging the change in service conditions.

¶21

So far as the order impugned dated 06.02.2024 is concerned, it is contended that the application filed by the petitioner-union under Section 33-A of the Act, 1947 read with Rule 59 of the Rules, 1957 has been closed on the ground that the conciliation proceedings have been closed, which have been closed vide order dated 06.02.2024 vide Annexure-16 at the end of respondent no.4, on the ground that it would be appropriate to refer the dispute to the National Tribunal for interpretation of the award. Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh states that as per his instructions failure of conciliation is under examination and has still not been referred to the National Tribunal as of date.

¶22

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

¶23

11.From perusal of records, it emerges that there was a settlement between the petitioner-union and HAL dated 03.08.1988 which pertained to calculation of payment of leave encashment. A notice dated 03.08.2023 under Section 9-A of the Act, 1947 has been issued by the HAL for amending the HAL leave rules/leave encashment and the change in the methodology of calculation. The petitioner-union initially through its application dated 08.08.2023 prayed for

¶24

conciliation. The said conciliation was prayed for in terms of Section 10 of the Act, 1947. Subsequent thereto, an application under Rule 59 of the Rules, 1957 read with Section 33-A of the Act, 1947 was filed on 03.11.2023 indicating that the notice dated 03.08.2023 should not be given effect to.

¶25

The respondent no.4 vide the order dated 06.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition, was of the view that it would be appropriate to refer the dispute to the National Tribunal for interpretation of the award. Subsequently, through an order of the same date i.e. 06.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the dispute as raised by the petitioner under Section 33-A of the Act, 1947 has been closed on the ground that as the conciliation proceedings have themselves been closed consequently the application under Section 33-A of the Act, 1947 is also being closed.

¶26

Raising a challenge to this order dated 06.02.2024 and praying for quashing of the notice dated 03.08.2023 and the subsequent order dated 07.02.2024, the instant petition has been filed.

¶27

The sheet anchor of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that because an application under Section 10 of the Act, 1947 had been filed on 08.08.2023, as such, once the conciliation application was pending consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have changed the service conditions pertaining to calculation of the leave encashment considering the provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act, 1947 inasmuch as settlement cannot be altered unless there is another settlement.

¶28

However, the fact of the matter remains that through the order dated 06.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.4 the application filed under Section 33-A of the Act, 1947 has been closed on the ground that the conciliation proceedings have ended. The conciliation proceedings have been ended vide order dated 06.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition, whereby the competent authority was of the view that it would be appropriate to refer the dispute to the National Tribunal meaning thereby that on the date of passing of the impugned order

¶29

dated 06.02.2024 there were no conciliation proceedings which were pending at the end of respondent no.4.

¶30

Section 33-A of the Act, 1947 is a special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service etc have changed during pendency of proceedings. The said proceedings also refer to the proceedings before a conciliation officer. Admittedly, through the order dated 06.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition, the conciliation proceedings are no more pending at the end of respondent no.4 rather the respondent no.4 was of the view that the same merit to be referred to the National Tribunal for interpretation of award. As per instructions of Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India, no final orders have still been passed as of date and the matter is still under examination with the Union of India. Thus, as of date of passing of the impugned order dated 06.02.2024, as challenged in the instant petition, there were no conciliation proceedings pending and consequently this Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 as there cannot be any occasion for an application under Section 33A of the Act, 1947 to be entertained and orders to be passed by the competent authority, once no conciliation proceedings are pending.

¶31

Further, once the conciliation proceedings have come to an end and the respondent-HAL has proceeded to change the terms and conditions for the payment of leave encashment, as such it is always open for the petitioner to raise a challenge to the said change in service conditions before appropriate Court in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶32

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference with the impugned orders is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

Without prejudice to the above, it is provided that the Union of India shall process the reference order as sent by respondent no.4 through order dated 06.02.2024 in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶34

Order Date :- 27.2.2024

¶35

A. Katiyar

¶36

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The General Secretary,Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association,H.a.L. Lucknow v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Labour and Employment,New Delhi and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Secretary,Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association,H.a.L. Lucknow v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Labour and Employment,New Delhi and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nikhil Hospital Sultanpur Road, District Amethi Thru. Its Owner /Smt. Rani Singh and Another Vs Appropriate Authority/State Appellate Authority Thru.Chairman Director Family Welfare,Lko. and Ors.

Abdul Rauf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Rural Devlopment Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Virendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Tax Lucknow Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P.Allahabad

Satya Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dr. Kashika Srivastava Vs Dr. Abhishek Saxena