This writ petition challenged an Industrial Court order granting interim relief in an unfair labour practice complaint regarding unnoticeful change to an attendance recording system.
The interlocutory order of the Industrial Court is maintained and the writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
wp.2453.10.13
kps
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2453 OF 2010
Voltas Limited.
..Petitioner
-Versus-
Voltas Employees Union and another.
..Respondents
Mr.J.P.Cama, Senior Counsel a/w Hemant Goyal and Ms.Madhavi Deshpande-Ravuri, for the Petitioner. Mr.K.S.Bapat i/b Desai & Desai Associates, for the Respondent No.1.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 10th January, 2011.
P.C.
1 This Writ Petition is directed against an Interlocutory order of the Industrial Court dated 22.10.2010 which is on a complaint filed by the Respondent/Union being Complaint (ULP) No.417/2010. On an application made for interim relief by the Respondent in the said complaint, the Industrial Court after hearing both sides has passed the following order:-
2. The respondents are directed to temporarily withdraw the unfair labour practices and Notice dt. 30.09.2010 and to continue the practice of marking attendance of the employees in attendance register till decision of the main complaint.
3. The parties are directed to co-operate the Court to decide the complaint expeditiously.”
2 The submission of Mr.Cama, learned Senior Counsel
2 wp.2453.10.13
appearing for the Petitioner, is that the complaint does not make out even prima facie case of any unfair labour practice. What has been relied upon is not the settlement with the Union but some understanding and particularly clause-3 therein which does not prohibit the Company from effecting a change in the Attendance Recording System. Mr.Cama invites my attention to the MoU and submits that there is no prohibition for introduction of computerization and particularly for marking attendance by swiping the cards. Mr.Cama has invited my attention to the complaint and allegations therein and also the findings in the order passed in the earlier complaint. However, according to Mr.Cama, after Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been amended by introduction of sub-clause (c), then, as far as the change effected due to updating or replacing of existing machineries and computerization is concerned, it will not affect the service conditions of employees and when such change does not affect total wages of workers, their hours of work and retrenchment, all the more before effecting the subject change it was not incumbent upon the Petitioner to issue any notice of such change. Therefore, prima facie conclusion recorded is erroneous and is required to be set aside. In any event, blanket order needs to be modified because the system has already been introduced in the Company and on own showing of the Union some of their members are swiping their cards and marking their attendance. For all these reasons, Mr.Cama submits that this is a fit case for interference.
3 On the other hand, Mr.Bapat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Union, submits that the order under challenge is interlocutory and the complaint is still pending. Further the Company does not dispute that attempt identical to one made presently was made earlier which was challenged by filing the Complaint (ULP) No.627/2000,
3 wp.2453.10.13
that complaint has been allowed and the Petitioner Company is directed not to introduce the computerized Attendance Recording System for all the employees working in the office of the Petitioner Company unilaterally without following due process of law. Mr.Bapat submits that whether introduction of such change by subject notice is in contravention of law and whether Section 9(A) as amended would protect the act of employer are matters which must be decided at the hearing of complaint and this is not a stage to record any conclusive finding. On the basis of the documents which are annexed to the affidavit in reply, Mr.Bapat submits that prima facie case is made out and therefore, this Court should not interfere at the interlocutory stage.
4 However, on instructions, Mr.Bapat has clarified that for getting entry into the main compound, all employees are required to swipe the cards and that swiping records the time of entry and exit from the main gate. What the Company now requires of the employees is to swipe the cards at every floor and units of the Company.
5 After hearing both sides and perusing the petition and annexures thereto, so also, the affidavit in reply, I am of the opinion that no interference is required with the interlocutory order at this stage as the complaint is pending and prima facie the Industrial Court has found that on identical matter a complaint was made by the Union earlier, which was allowed. That order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 627/2000 was not challenged by the Petitioner Company. Further whether the amendment to Section 9(A) w.e.f. 25.10.2007, straightaway permits the Petitioner Company to effect a change in the Attendance Recording System or whether the order of the Industrial Court passed earlier would mean that the Company has to resort to the mode provided by law and that means by putting an end to the binding settlement, are matters which
4
wp.2453.10.13
have to be decided at the trial. Any interference at this stage or by making observations would prejudice both sides.
6 In the light of the fact that the Petitioner is today sufficiently protected because the Union and its members do not object to swiping of the cards at main gate, the order under challenge is not interfered and is, therefore, maintained and the petition is dismissed with clarification that the Court below shall not be influenced by any observation made at the interlocutory stage while deciding the complaint. In the peculiar facts of the case, the hearing of complaint is expedited.
6 Needless to clarify that Mr.Bapat has made a statement on instructions from the Union that the Union and its members will continue to enter the main gate by swiping the cards.
7 Subject to above, the petition is dismissed. No costs.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with an interlocutory order allowing interim relief in an unfair labour practice complaint regarding attendance recording system changes.
Whether an earlier unchallenged order of the Industrial Court in a similar matter binds the petitioners at the interim stage.
Whether the amendment to Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act permits unilateral changes to attendance systems without notice in the context of computerization.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Voltas Limited
Voltas Employees Union
Dharmadhikari, S.C.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
