Bongaigaon Refinery Employees' Union Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Employees’ Union. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC, and Mr. H.

¶22

Page No.# 2/20

¶23

Sarma, learned standing counsel of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), appearing for the respondent No. 2.

¶24

2. The petitioner Employees’ Union, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to the award, dated 16.05.2014, passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Guwahati, in Reference Case No. 11/2012.

¶25

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:

¶26

The petitioner is a registered trade Union representing the employees of Bongaigaon Refinery under the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL). The Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited(hereinafter, referred to as ‘BRPL’, for short) was merged with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) on 25.03.2009. Prior to the merger of the BRPL with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL), settlements were arrived at between the management of BRPL and the Unions. One of such tripartite settlement was so signed on 13.02.1991.

¶27

Under the said settlement, the management agreed to adopt the promotion policy for a period of 6(six) years. Thereafter, the management of BRPL had mooted a new concept of promotion from non-executive cadre to executive cadre in a bipartite discussion held with the Union on 19.05.1995. In terms of clause 2.9 of the said settlement, employees in the Special Selection Grade(SSG) were made entitled to certain reimbursements/allowance equivalent to the lowest Executive Grade as

¶28

Page No.# 3/20

¶29

compensation.

¶30

The said settlement was made effective from 01.08.1994, for a period of 10(ten) years after approval of the Board of Directors and an inter-Office Memorandum was issued on 24.07.1995, for implementation of the scheme for promotion coming into operation. Thereafter, a tripartite settlement was arrived at between the management of BRPL, BRPL Employees’ Union in the presence of the RLC(C), Guwahati, on 25.07.2024, in respect of the promotion policy to be followed in the refinery. The said promotion policy was to be effective subject to the approval of the Board, with effect from 2004 for a period of 5(five) years, or, until a new promotion policy was mutually settled, whichever, was earlier.

¶31

In terms of clause 2 of the said settlement arrived at in the matter, the SSG Grade employees upon completion of 6(six) years in the grade, with effect from the cut-off year i.e. 2004, and not promoted to the Executive Grade ‘B’, would be allowed the following benefits till promotion to the Executive Grade ‘B’:

¶32

(a). Reimbursement of local travel expenses by car up to 70% of the rate as admissible to Executive in Grade ‘B’.

¶33

(b). A lump sum of Rs. 550/- p.m. as compensating allowance.

¶34

The said memorandum of settlement arrived at on 25.07.2004, was amended by another settlement, dated 06.12.2004, wherein, said clause 2 was modified.

¶35

Page No.# 4/20

¶36

As per the modification, the benefits extended to the SSG Grade employees till their promotion to Executive Grade ‘B’, was done away with and a frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m., as personal pay, was made available to them. The said personal pay, now, coming into force, was not to be counted for any purpose except for retiral benefits at the time of superannuation of the employee concerned.

¶37

It is projected in the writ petition that after the BRPL was merged with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL), w.e.f. 25.03.2009, all permanent employees of the BRPL became employees of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and were to be so employed on existing terms and conditions with regard to remuneration and without interruption, or, break in service. On the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) taking over control of the BRPL w.e.f. 25.03.2009; a settlement was arrived at between the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) and the petitioner Employee’s Union on 02.04.2009, on matters relating to allowances, perquisites, benefits, etc., excluding wage revision, HRA and other allowances related to wage.

¶38

It is contended by the petitioners that the frozen amount of Rs. 950/p.m., as personal pay, was continued by the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). Thereafter, on 29.07.2010, a long-term wage settlement was centrally signed with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) authorities for the employees of all its refineries and other Divisions in India including the BRPL unit.

¶39

It is further contended that the said settlement arrived at, had not

¶40

Page No.# 5/20

¶41

withdrawn, substituted and/or discontinued the frozen amount of Rs. 950/p.m. which was being extended to the SSG Grade employees, as personal pay, in terms of the settlement arrived at on 25.07.2004, between the Employees Union and the BRPL authorities. It is also projected in the petition that after the tripartite settlement was so arrived at on 29.07.2010, a promotion policy was signed between the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) and the petitioner Employees’ Union on 16.09.2010.

¶42

It is also projected that in terms of the promotion policy coming into force in terms of the said settlement arrived at in the matter, the frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m. being paid to the SSG Grade employees, as personal pay, was not withdrawn and the same was continued to be paid to the SSG Grade employees. However, vide a communication, dated 02.12.2010, the said frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m., was discontinued with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. August 2010.

¶43

Being aggrieved by the withdrawal of the said frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m., an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner Employees’ Union and the same not being settled in the conciliation held, the matter came to be referred by the competent Government before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Guwahati, for adjudication, vide Notification, dated 16.02.2012. The said reference was registered by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court at Guwahati as Reference Case No. 11/2012 and on the adjudicatory process involved being completed, the learned Tribunal passed an award, dated 16.05.2014, answering the reference against the

¶44

Page No.# 6/20

¶45

petitioner Employees’ Union by holding that the action of the management in discontinuing the frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m. paid to the SSG grade employees, as personal pay, was justified. The copy of the said award was communicated to the petitioner Employees’ Union, vide communication, dated 11.12.2014.

¶46

Being aggrieved, the petitioner Employees’ Union has instituted the present proceeding.

¶47

4. Mr. Dasguputa, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Employees’ Union, by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the withdrawal of the frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m., granted to the SSG Grade employees, as personal pay, in terms of the settlement, dated 25.07.2004, arrived at between the Employees Union and the management of the BRPL; was never modified in the subsequent settlements arrived at in the matter between the petitioner Employees’ Union and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) authorities. The learned senior counsel has further emphasized that there is no specific provision in any of the subsequent settlement agreements coming into being towards modifying, and/or, withdrawing, and/or, amending the said frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m., to the SSG grade employees.

¶48

5. Mr. Dasgputa, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m., forms a part of the allowance/wage of the SSG grade employees and as such, it is a condition of service enjoyed by the SSG grade employees since long till 2010. Being a condition of service, the management could not have discontinued the

¶49

Page No.# 7/20

¶50

same without serving any notice upon the petitioner Employees’ Union.

¶51

6. Mr. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel, by referring to the award, dated 16.05.2014, passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Guwahati, has submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the materials coming on record before it and solely basing on the prescriptions made in the settlement, dated 27.10.2010, and the earlier promotion settlement with regard to the promotion policy arrived at on 16.09.2010, proceeded to hold that the prescriptions made, therein, having also provided that the earlier stagnation benefits extended to the workmen, shall no longer be applicable; the withdrawal of the frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m., was justified. Accordingly, Mr. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective and accordingly, the award, dated 16.05.2014, passed by the learned Tribunal, would mandate interference by this court.

¶52

7. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, has, at the outset, submitted that the settlements arrived at between the workmen and the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) after the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) had taken over the management of the BRPL, had made provision for stagnation benefit in respect of the employees in Grade VIII (erstwhile SSG) and therein, while extending to the employees, a benefit in this connection; no reference was made with regard to the entitlement of the workmen to the frozen amount/personal pay at the rate of Rs. 950/- p.m.. The learned counsel has further submitted that the evidences adduced before the learned Central

¶53

Page No.# 8/20

¶54

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, in the reference case involved, had specifically brought on record that the subsequent settlement so arrived at after 25.03.2009, having superseded the settlement arrived at between the BRPL authorities and the workmen, wherein, the frozen amount/ personal pay of Rs. 950/- p.m., was extended to the employees in the SSG Grade VIII; the subsequent agreements having been so arrived at in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the same would hold the field. The learned counsel has specifically referred to the settlement, dated 27.10.2010, wherein, in paragraph No. 2.4, it was provided that the said settlement will supersede all the agreements related to any other pay related benefits arrived at between the recognised Union of erstwhile BRPL and its management in respect of the workmen of BGR.

¶55

8. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, by further referring to the tripartite settlement agreement arrived at on 16.09.2010, has submitted that clause 3 thereof, had specified the stagnation benefit for the employees in Grade VIII and therein, also, it was specifically provided that in addition to the stagnation benefit so extended vide clause 3 of the said settlement agreement, no other stagnation benefit would be admissible to the workmen in Grade VIII. The learned counsel has submitted that although the frozen amount/personal pay of Rs. 950/- p.m., was continued to be extended to the employees in Grade VIII after the settlement agreement, dated 27.10.2010, however, the same coming to the notice of the management, the petitioner Employees’ Union was intimated vide communication, dated 02.12.2010, that the frozen amount/personal pay of Rs. 950/- p.m., would be discontinued with effect from 01.08.2010. The learned counsel has further reiterated that the said amount was continued

¶56

Page No.# 9/20

¶57

to be paid only on account of an oversight and the same was discontinued from the salaries of the employees concerned w.e.f. January, 2011, and the recovery of the said amount w.e.f. August, 2010, till December, 2010, was so made from the arrear salary/ salary of the employees paid in the month of February, 2011.

¶58

9. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has submitted that in terms of the settlements arrived at between the petitioner Employees’ Union and the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL); the employees including the employees in Grade VIII of the Bongaigaon Refinery, are getting better perks. The learned counsel has further submitted that earlier, under the management of the BRPL; the employees were being granted their annual increment with effect from 1^st of July of the year. However, on the management of the BRPL being taken over by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL), the BGR workmen were extended the benefit of preponement of annual increment by 6(six) months. The employees in terms of the settlement arrived after the taking over of the management of the BRPL by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL), had drawn their annual increment in July, 2007, and thereafter, they were permitted to draw their further annual increment at full rate with effect from 01.01.2008. The said benefit, as granted, had resulted in an extra pay benefit of approximately Rs. 12,000/- p.a., to the employees concerned.

¶59

10. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, has further submitted that the settlement agreements arrived at in the matter on 29.07.2010, 16.09.2010, and 27.10.2010, were signed by the President of the petitioner Employees’ Union and accordingly, those settlements implemented after merger of the

¶60

Page No.# 10/20

¶61

BRPL with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL); the petitioner Employees’ Union being a party to such settlement, is debarred from claiming any earlier benefits other than the benefits envisaged in the settlements coming into being after such merger.

¶62

11. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, has submitted that it is a settled position of law that a tripartite settlement arrived at between the parties under the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would have a binding effect on all employees of the establishment, or, part thereof. With regard to the plea raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Employees’ Union that prior to withdrawal of the frozen amount/personal pay of Rs. 950/- p.m.; no notice was issued to the employees concerned, and/or, the Unions representing them, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, by referring to the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has submitted that where such a change is effected in pursuance of the settlement or award, no notice is required to be so granted.

¶63

12. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, has further submitted that the withdrawal of the said benefit extended to the workmen in Grade VIII of the establishment, having been so done in terms of the memorandum of settlement arrived at in the matter and such agreement having superseded the earlier agreements existing including the agreement under which the employees had been extended with the benefit of Rs. 950/- p.m. as frozen amount/personal pay, no notice was mandated to be so issued to the petitioner Employees’ Union, herein.

¶64

13. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has submitted that

¶65

Page No.# 11/20

¶66

the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, upon due and proper examination of the memorandum of settlements/ agreements exhibited in the matter, had drawn its conclusions and had proceeded to hold that the claim of the employees for being continued to be authorised the frozen amount/personal pay of Rs. 950/p.m., to be unjustified. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, has contended that the said award, dated 16.05.2014, passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, would not mandate any interference.

¶67

14. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also duly perused the materials made available on record.

¶68

15. The issue referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government vide communication, dated 16.02.2012, being relevant, is extracted, hereinbelow:

¶69

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s IOCL, Bongaigaon Refinery in discontinuance of the payment of frozen amount/ personal pay of Rs. 950/- per month in terms of Tripartite settlement dated 29/7/2010 (clause 2.4) is justified? If not to what relief the Grade-VIII (earlier SSG) employees are entitled to?”

¶70

16. The erstwhile management of BRPL had entered into various settlements with the representative employees of the petitioner Employees’ Union and the said agreements also included the benefits extendable to the employees under the erstwhile SSG Grade. A tripartite settlement was arrived at between the management of BRPL and the BRPL employees Union in the presence of RLC(C), Guwahati, Assam, on 25.07.2004, in respect of the promotion policy to be followed. In terms of the said

¶71

Page No.# 12/20

¶72

settlement arrived at, in addition to reimbursement of the local travel expenses reimbursement of local travel expenses for car up to 70% of the rate as admissible to Executive Grade B, extended to SSG Grade employees, a further lump sum amount of Rs. 550/- p.m., as "Compensating Allowance", was also provided. The said memorandum of settlement was amended by a separate settlement, dated 06.12.2004, wherein, clause 2 of the earlier settlement, dated 25.07.2004, was modified. As per the modified provisions of Clause 2 of the settlement, dated 25.07.2004; the benefits extended to them earlier till their promotion to Executive Grade B, was done away and a frozen amount of Rs. 950/p.m., as personal pay, was made available. It was stipulated therein that the said personal pay, was not to be reckoned for any purpose except for retiral benefits at the time of retirement of the employee concerned. The said benefit was made applicable with effect from the year 2004.

¶73

17. The Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd., was merged with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) w.e.f. 25.03.2009, and as per the scheme of amalgamation, all permanent employees of the BRPL, as on the effective date, was stipulated to have become the employees of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) and were to be continued on similar terms and conditions as to remuneration, without break and/or interruption in service. After the management of the erstwhile BRPL was taken over by the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), a settlement was arrived at between the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) and the Bongaigaon Refinery Employees Union on 02.04.2009, with regard to work related allowances, prerequisite benefits, etc.. However, herein, there was no reference to the frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m. authorised to the SSG Grade VIII employees in terms of the settlement, dated

¶74

Page No.# 13/20

¶75

06.12.2004. Subsequently, the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), at the corporate level, signed a long-term settlement on wage revision for workmen with all recognised Unions of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) including the petitioner Employees’ Union on 29.07.2010. The said settlement was to be effective from 01.07.2008, in respect of the BGR workmen. It is seen that the President of the petitioner Employees’ Union was a signatory to the said settlement.

¶76

18. After the signing of the long-term settlement, dated 29.07.2010, a tripartite settlement on revised promotion policy was signed by the management of the Bongaigaon Refinery and the Bongaigaon Refinery's Employees Union on 16.09.2010, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Guwahati.

¶77

19. The clause 3 of the said settlement agreement pertaining to stagnation benefits of Grade VIII employees i.e. the erstwhile SSG Grade VIII employees, being relevant, is extracted herein below.

¶78

“ 3. Stagnation in Grade VIII

¶79

Pending finalisation of modalities for movement from Grade VIII to Grade IX, workmen in Salary Grade VIII, who do not get promotion to officer Grade A upon completion of 6 years in the grade shall be given an additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn as Personal Pay, provided he has minimum 'satisfactory' ACR rating in the preceding three years, which will be treated as Basic Pay for all purposes. This benefit, however, will be admissible till the workman is promoted to Grade A Officer.

¶80

Such eligible workmen who do not get promotion to Officer Grade A upon completion of another 4 years service in Grade VIII from the date of grant of Personal Pay as Stagnation Benefit as above, shall be granted one additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn as Additional Personal Pay, which will be treated as Basic Pay for all purposes. This benefit will be admissible till the workman is promoted to Grade A Officer.

¶81

The benefit of Additional Personal Pay shall also be performance linked and shall be given to such workmen who have minimum two "Outstanding" CR in Grade VIII in the preceding 4 years.

¶82

Page No.# 14/20

¶83

Note: Besides the above, no other stagnation benefit shall be permissible to be admissible to workmen in Grade VIII.”

¶84

20. A perusal of the Note appended to the clause 3 of the said settlement agreement, would go to reveal that in addition to the stagnation benefit now agreed to be applicable to the employees in the Grade VIII in terms of the provisions of clause 3, no other stagnation benefit would be admissible to the workmen in Grade VIII. The settlement on promotion policy signed by the parties on 16.09.2010, was followed by a tripartite settlement, dated 27.10.2010. In terms of the said settlement agreement, more particularly, the applicability clause provided in clause 2, thereof; the settlement was to supersede all agreements related to any other payrelated benefits arrived at between the recognised Union of the erstwhile BRPL and its management in respect of workmen of BGR.

¶85

21. The applicability clause, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:

¶86

“ 2.0 Applicability:

¶87

The applicability/coverage of this Settlement is as under:

¶88

2.1 This Settlement shall apply to all categories of "Workmen" as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 employed in any one of the scales of pay mentioned at Annexure-A who were on rolls of the Corporation as on 31.12.2006(30.06.2007 in the case of BGR) and continued in the service thereafter.

¶89

2.2 Workmen who were in the service of the Corporation as on 01.01.2007(01.07.2007 in the case of BGR) but separated from service after 1.1.2007(01.07.2007 in the case of BGR) due to resignation with the consent of the Management, retirement or death will be eligible for benefits of pay revision upto the period of their separation. Similarly, workmen who were promoted to Officers Grade during the period from 01.01.2007(01.07.2007 in the case of BGR) to the date preceding 29.07.2010, shall be paid amounts that would have been due to them upto the date of promotion.

¶90

Recoveries and deductions to be effected on the revised pay in their case will similarly apply for the period upto the date of separation/promotion as the case may be.

¶91

2.3 Workmen who joined the service of the Corporation in regular scale of pay on co after 01.01.2007 (01.07.2007 in the case of BGR) shall also be covered by the provisions of this Settlement. However, the Fitment benefits shall not be admissible them.

¶92

2.4 This Settlement will supersede the agreement(s), related to any other pay related benefits, arrived between the recognized Union of the erstwhile BRPL and its Management in respect of workmen of BGR.”

¶93

Page No.# 15/20

¶94

22. In the subsequent settlement agreements, arrived at in the matter by and between the parties under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, more particularly, the settlements, dated 29.07.2010, 16.09.2010 and 27.10.2010, there was no provision made for continuation of the frozen amount/ personal pay of Rs. 950/- p.m. to the Grade VIII employees of the Bongaigaon Refinery. Although after signing of the said settlement agreements, the employees in Grade VIII, were being continued to be paid a frozen amount of Rs. 950/- p.m., as personal pay, which is contended to have been so done on account of an oversight on the part of the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL); the same on coming to notice of the management, a communication, dated 02.12.2010, was issued to the petitioner Employees’ Union to the effect that the frozen amount/personal pay of Rs. 950/- p.m., will be discontinued with effect from 01.08.2010 i.e. after signing of the settlement, dated 29.07.2010. Accordingly, the said amount paid to the employees in Grade VIII with effect from August, 2010, to December, 2010, was recovered from the salary of the employees which led to the raising of an industrial dispute and its subsequent reference to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, Assam, by the competent Government leading to registration of Reference Case No. 11/2012, for adjudication of the issues so referred and extracted hereinabove. Before the learned Tribunal, the parties to the proceeding, had adduced evidences in support of their respective stand.

¶95

23. The learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, after appreciating the evidences coming on record and also after examining the settlements arrived at between the parties and exhibited before it, vide award, dated 16.05.2014, had proceeded to draw

¶96

Page No.# 16/20

¶97

the following conclusions:

¶98

“ 7. From the evidence on record as discussed above it appears that on the basis of a tripartite settlement dated 13.2.1991 (Exhibit-2) on promotion policy a bipartite settlement titled as "Channel of promotion from non-executive to executive cadre" was arrived at on 24.7.1995 extending frozen amount to the tune of Rs. 950/- per month to the employees in SSG grade vide Exhibit-4. Thereafter a settlement arrived between the Management of BGR and Petro-Chemical Ltd. and their workmen in presence of RLC(C), Guwahati on 25.7.2004 in which the SSG employees who have completed 6 years in SSG as per the cut off date eligibility, starting from the year 2004 and not promoted to executive Grade-B were allowed reimbursement of local travel expenses for car up to 70% of the rate as admissible to Executive in grade B and lump sum amount of Rs.550/- p.m. as "Compensating Allowance" vide Exhibit-6. Again in tripartite settlement between the BRPL & their employees at the instance of RLC(C), Guwahati on 6.12.2004 regarding promotion policy. As per the said settlement the employees in SSG grade upon completion of 6 years in SSG grades as per the cut off date of eligibility starting from the year 2004 and not promoted to executive grade B were allowed the benefit of frozen amount of Rs. 950/- per month as personal pay till promotion to executive grade B vide para-2.1 of Exhibit -7. Subsequently the BGR and petrochemicals Ltd. was merged with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. with effect from 25.3.2009 and thereby BGPRL becomes a unit of IOCL and known as IOCL. Consequent upon the merger of BGR and Petrochemicals Ltd. with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. a long terms settlement was arrived between the management of Oil India Corporation Ltd., Refineries Division (including Corporate Office), Pipelines Division, R & D Centre and Assam Oil Division, New Delhi and the recognized Union operating the various establishment in the Division Corporate Office, New Delhi and Assam Oil Division was signed on 29.7.2010 for a period of 10 years vide Exhibit-8. Subsequently another memorandum of settlement was arrived on 16.9.2010 between the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Refineries Division), BGR and their workmen represented by BGR employees Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati vide Exhibit-9. In both the settlements marked as Exhibit-8 and 9 there is no mention of the frozen amount/personal pay however in the MOS dated 16.9.2010 (Exhibit-9) at Clause-3 regarding stagnation in grade VIII it was agreed that the workmen in salary grade VIII, who do not get promotion to Officer Grade A upon completion of 6 years in the grade shall be given an additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn as personal pay, provided he has minimum satisfactory ACR rating in the preceding 3 years which will be treated as basic pay for all purposes; and this benefit would be admissible till the workman is promoted to grade A Officer. It is also agreed that such eligible workman who do not get promotion to Officer grade A upon completion of another 4 years service in Grade VIII from the date of grant of personal pay as stagnation benefit as above shall be granted one additional increment @ last increment drawn as additional personal pay which will be treated as basic pay for all purposes. Further it was also decided that the benefit of additional personal pay shall also be performance link and shall be given to such workmen who have minimum 2 "outstanding" CR in grade VIII in the preceding 4 years. It has been clearly mentioned in the note of clause-3 of the aforesaid settlement vide Exhibit-9(ii) that besides the above, no other stagnation benefit shall be permissible to be admissible to the workmen in Grade VIII. It is found in the settlement arrived at on 27.10.2010 before the RLC(C), Guwahati, between the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (Refineries Division), BGR and their workmen regarding revision of pay scale, pay related and other allowance for the workmen proved as Exhibit-10 wherein Clause-2.4 marked as Exhibit-10(i) which specifically mentions as "This Settlement will supersede the agreement(s), related to any other pay related benefits, arrived between the recognized Union of the erstwhile BRPL and its Management in respect of workmen of BGR", and in both the settlements the workmen witness No.1 was the signatory as President of the Union vide Exhibit-9(1) and Exhibit-10(1).

¶99

Page No.# 17/20

¶100

Thus it is clear that although the management agreed to pay some benefits due to the stagnation in promotion of the employees of the BRPL prior to their merger in the form of reimbursement of some expenditures such as, local travel expenses, children allowances, compensatory allowances, frozen amount/personal pay at different times have been discontinued as per the terms of the tripartite settlement marked as Exhibit-8 & 9 where there is no mention to frozen amount/personal pay, rather in order to compensate the stagnation benefit as additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn as personal pay was allowed. While according to the memorandum of settlement dated 27.10.2010 (Exhibit-10) all other agreement(s), related to any other pay related benefits arrived at between the recognized union and the erstwhile BRPL in its management in respect of the workmen of BGR were superseded.

¶101

8. Section 18 of I.D. Act runs as follows:

¶102

"Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding

¶103

(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

¶104

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), and arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.

¶105

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of Section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on---

¶106

(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;

¶107

(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;

¶108

(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;

¶109

(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the ate of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part."

¶110

Thus the provision of Section 18 of I.D. Act is very clear as regards the binding of settlements and awards and the evidence of W.W.1 shows that he himself represented the union in all the settlement and, the settlement dated 27.10.2010 (Exhibit-10) superseded all other settlements/agreement(s) relating to any other pay related benefit arrived between the recognized union of the erstwhile BRPL and in its management in respect of workmen of BGR.

¶111

9. The plea of the workmen that the management has withdrawn the frozen amount/personal pay illegally without issuing any prior notice. On a plain reading of proviso of the Section 9A of the I.D. Act, it is found that where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award no notice shall be required for informing

¶112

Page No.# 18/20

¶113

such change. The MOS marked as Exhibit-9 & 10 clearly shows that the claim for stagnation of promotion of SSG grade-VIII employee have been settled up by allowing them one increment and that in terms of the MOS dated 27.10.2010 all other previous settlements/agreement(s) were superseded. In view of the submission of learned Advocate for both the sides and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court arrived at in the cases as relied upon by the learned Advocate for the management and having regard to the provisions of law as discussed above, I find no reason to entertain the plea of the workmen and hence, the arguments placed by Mr. J.K. Kar and R. Barpujari are rejected.

¶114

Further pleading of the workmen is that the frozen amount/personal pay is a form of allowance and part of wages and such, it is a condition of service already enjoyed by the workmen, which cannot be discontinued, while the management vide their letter marked as Exhibit-11 discontinued the same illegally. The frozen amount/ personal pay was allowed admissible by the management in order to compensate the workmen in SSG grade-VIII grade and those workmen who have not got frozen amount/personal pay granted by the management is a pay related benefit. According to Clause 3 of the MOS marked as Exhibit-9 the stagnation benefit to SSG grade VIII of the employee has been given in the form of additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn as personal pay and besides the said benefit, no other stagnation benefit shall be permissible to be admissible to the workmen in grade VIII. As such, I find no force in the argument raised by the learned Advocates for the workmen.

¶115

10. From my above discussion and having regard to my findings arrived at as above it can safely be held that the workmen have not been able to establish their claim that they are entitled to frozen amount/personal pay of Rs. 950/- per month in terms of the settlement dated 29.7.2010, 16.9.2010 & 27.10.2010 (Vide Exhibit-8, Exhibit-9 & Exhibit-10 respectively). Accordingly it is opined that the action of the management of M/S IOCL, Bongaigaon Refinery in discontinuance of the payment of frozen amount/personal pay of Rs. 950/- per month in terms of Tripartite Settlement dated 29.7.2010 (clause 2.4) is justified and as such, the workmen under grade-VIII (earlier SSG) employees are not entitled to any relief. In the result, this reference is decided in negative against the workmen.”

¶116

24. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, vide award, dated 16.05.2014, and as extracted, hereinabove, in the light of the evidences brought on record by the parties to the proceeding including the relevant settlements arrived at.

¶117

25. On a close perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions drawn by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, have been so

¶118

Page No.# 19/20

¶119

drawn by strictly appreciating the clauses incorporated in the settlements/ agreements exhibited before it, more particularly, the settlements, dated 29.07.2010, 16.09.2010 and 27.10.2010.

¶120

26. It is to be noted that the petitioner Employees’ Union was a signatory to the settlement agreements, dated 29.07.2010, 16.09.2010 and 27.10.2010. Accordingly, the same having been so arrived at under the provisions of Section 18.3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in terms of a conciliation held in the matter; the same is binding upon the workmen represented by the petitioner Employees’ Union. The promotion policy settlement arrived at on 16.09.2010 and the settlement, dated 27.10.2010, having specifically provided that all agreements/ settlements existing in the matter with regard to the issue involved therein; would stand superseded and further, that the stagnation benefit now extended to the employees in Grade VIII vide clause 3 of the promotion policy settlement, dated 16.09.2010, no other stagnation benefit would be permissible to be admissible to the workmen in Grade VIII and the frozen amount/personal pay being in the form of a stagnation benefit and the same having been superseded by the subsequent settlements arrived at in the matter by and between the parties under the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; this Court is of the considered view that the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, had not erred that the subsequent settlements had the effect of discontinuance of the payment of frozen amount/personal pay of Rs. 950/- p.m. to the employees in Grade VIII(earlier SSG Grade).

¶121

27. The conclusions drawn by the learned Central Government Industrial

¶122

Page No.# 20/20

¶123

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, in its award, dated 16.05.2014, having been so drawn strictly basing on the materials brought on record before it and the petitioner Employees’ Union having not highlighted any perversity with regard to such conclusions drawn by the learned Tribunal; this Court with the limited scope available in a writ Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in examining the correctness or otherwise of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, would not proceed to disturb such conclusions in the absence of any perversity existing therein. Accordingly, the conclusions so drawn by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award, dated 16.05.2014, would not mandate any interference by this Court.

¶124

28. In view of the above discussions; this Court is of the considered view that the award, dated 16.05.2014, passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, would not mandate any interference and accordingly, the instant writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶125

29. The records of Reference Case No. 11/2012 received from the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, be remitted back to the learned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶126

JUDGE

¶127

Comparing Assistant

Bongaigaon Refinery Employees' Union v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bongaigaon Refinery Employees' Union v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nong Nangkar Vs The State of Ap

Bodak Jongkey Vs The State of Ap

Smti Rinita Narzary Basumatary Vs The State of Ap

Rajkishor Mali Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Star Cement Meghalaya Limited Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dipen Hazarika Vs State Bank of India and 8 Ors.