The Management Vs The Secretary

The Management DHL Express [India] Pvt Ltd Formerly known as DHL World Wide Express India Pvt Ltd 12, South Phase, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 032. rep.by The Regional HR Manager-South India

¶11

.. Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

1.The Secretary

¶14

DHL Worldwide Express India Private Ltd., Employees Union, NO.34, 2^nd Line Beach Road, Chennai 600 001.

¶15

2.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Principal Secretary Labour and Employment [A1] Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

1

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶20

Prayer:- Review Application is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, to review the order dated 05.04.2024, passed in

¶21

WP.No.5832/2020.

¶22

For Petitioner [s] : Mr.G.Anandagopalan for M/s.Agam Legal Advocates For Respondent[s] : Mr.K.M.Ramesh Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Subramani, for R1 Mrs.M.Jayanthy, AGP for R2

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(1)The review petition is filed to review the order of this Court dated 05.04.2024, in WP.No.5832/2020.

¶25

(2)The review petitioner will be referred to as ''Management'' and the 1^st respondent will be referred to as ''Union''.

¶26

(3)The brief facts necessary for deciding the review petition are as follows:-

¶27

(4)The respondent/Union raised a dispute before the Labour Officer-III on 11.05.2015, protesting against the Management's divide and rule policy and unfair labour practice against the Hay Grade employees. The dispute was numbered as Na.Ka.No.266/2015. The Management submitted its reply on 25.02.2016, to which the respondent/Union submitted its rejoinder on 14.06.2016. The Management submitted a further reply on

¶28

2

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶31

29.06.2016. As conciliation efforts failed in the above dispute, the Labour Officer III, submitted his Failure Report to the Government in Na.Ka.No.266/2015 on 12.09.2016. After the Failure Report and prior to the reference by the Government, the Management and the Union entered into a 18[1] Settlement, regarding the Charter of Demands raised by the Union on 28.12.2015 and numbered as Na.Ka.No.259/2016. Thereafter, on 29.11.2018, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.669, referred Na.Ka.No.266/2015 for adjudication. The Labour Court took up the dispute on file in ID.No.180/2018. During the pendency of the dispute, the Management filed IA.No.1/2019, under Section 11[3] of the Industrial Disputes Act, to pass an Award in terms of the Settlement dated 27.09.2017, or in the alternative to reject the reference. The Labour Court, by order dated 30.12.2019, dismissed the IA, holding inter alia that the terms of 18[1] Settlement had no connection with the dispute raised before it. Consequently, the Management filed WP.No.5832/2020, challenging the order dated 27.09.2017, in IA.No.1/2019 of the Labour Court, as well as G.O.Ms.No.669, dated 29.11.2018. This Court, by order dated 05.04.2024, dismissed the writ petition. The Management, has

¶32

3

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶35

therefore filed the above review petition, seeking review of the order in the writ petition.

¶36

(5)The review petition came up for hearing as to admission and the same was admitted on 15.07.2025. On notice, the respondent has appeared through counsel.

¶37

(6)The main contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that, even though the issue was raised with regard to the validity of the review, this Court failed to consider the said issue. The learned counsel submitted that this Court considered the issue only from the perspective of the settlements and that the other legal issues raised, were not considered. The learned counsel raised two grounds, in support of his submissions that the reference itself was bad. Firstly, the learned counsel submitted that the reference made by the Government was different from the demand raised before the Labour Conciliation Officer and also that the claim of the Union before the Labour Court was not supported by the demand raised before the Conciliation Officer. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by claiming the relief of merger of S Grade employees with Hay Grade employees, the Union had abandoned its

¶38

4

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶41

claim as projected before the Conciliation Officer. The learned counsel

¶42

further submitted that the wordings of the reference did not reflect the actual dispute raised.

¶43

(7)The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no defect either in the reference or in its wording. The learned counsel submitted that throughout the proceedings, it was the specific stand of the Union that the Management adopted divide and rule policy and that the Management deliberately neglected to discuss the issue of wage revision with regard to the ''Hay Grade Employees'', despite the two performing identical functions. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court as well as the Labour Court considered the issues raised before it and decided the same and therefore, the Management, if aggrieved should challenge the decision only by way of appeal and hence, the review petition is not maintainable.

¶44

(8)Heard both learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

¶45

(9)In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the

¶46

petitioner, this Court deems it necessary to refer to the demand made by the Union on 11.05.2015, before the Labour Conciliation Officer, which

¶47

5

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶50

forms the basis of the reference. The demand dated 11.05.2015, reads as

¶51

follows:-

¶52

Sub:-Management adopting-divided & Rule policy – unfair Labour Practices-against-Hay Grade Employees – Regarding.

¶53

1. We submit that our BHL World Wide Express [I] Pvt Ltd Employees Union is registered under Indian Trade Union Act, 1926. Our Union is functioning in the Management of DHL Express [I] Pvt Ltd and recognized by the Management. All the employees were enrolled themselves as members of the above Union. Our Union is functioning only one Union pattern in the establishment past 17 years.

¶54

2. We submit that the Management and our Union were signed the wage revision settlement every three years. We are maintaining the Industrial peace, cordial relationship with the Management and we signed the latest Wage Revision Settlement before the Conciliation Officer.

¶55

3. We submit that in the mean time the Management is made wrong direction against our Union members belong to HAY Grade employees. The Management is deliberately neglected the issue

¶56

6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶59

of discussing the wage revision settlement and mentioned ''with regard to HAY Grade employees cannot be entertained.''

¶60

4. We submit that out Union already mentioned in the Charter of Demands, both the S Grade and HAY Grade employees are eligible get to the higher wages in the signed wage revision agreement.

¶61

5. We submit that the Management's divide and rule activities is quite illegal, unjustified and against the principle of natural justice. The Management is violated the basic norms and procedures of Labour welfare law and code of Industrial discipline. The Management is violated the Section 2[s], 25-T. 25-U and Fifth Schedule of the ID Act, 1947.

¶62

6. Therefore, we request to you, the Hon'ble Labour Officer may be pleased to invite the Management for conciliation to revoke the unfair labour practices against HAY Grade employees, to maintain the service conditions.

¶63

(10)To this, the Management replied on 25.02.2016, as follows:-

¶64

''We would like to state that all the Hay Grade employees working in our Company, fall under

¶65

7

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶68

the Management Cadre and they carry out duties and responsibilities which are distinct from those that are performed by the unionized 'S' Grade workmen. These Hay Grade employees have administrative and supervisory responsibilities and hence, they do not fall under the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶69

Hay Grade employees' salary revision across India is done as per the performance appraisal system applicable to them as per the terms and conditions laid down in their appointment order as well as further performance appraisal policy.

¶70

It is pertinent to point out here that DHL World Wide [I] Pvt Ltd., Employees Union had submitted their Charter of Demands on 28^th December, 2012, to the Management demanding wage increase for ''S'' Grade workmen and ''Hay'' Grade employees. The Management did not agree to the Union's demand stating that Hay Grade employee dissent come under the preview of ''workmen'' and hence, their demands were not entertained.

¶71

The Union filed the dispute No.334/13 before the Labour Officer-III and issue was take up for conciliation and the dispute was amicably settled by

¶72

8

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶75

signing 12[3] Settlement under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 10^th December, 2015, leaving behind Hay Grade employees demand, since they do not fall under the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.''

¶76

(11)Before the Labour Conciliation Officer-III, conciliation proceedings

¶77

were conducted and in the conciliation Failure Report, the Conciliation Officer specifically considered the demand of the Union and the reply of the Management. In the Failure Report dated 12.09.2016, among others, the following demands of the Union were recorded:-

¶78

''xNu tifahd Ntiy S fpNuL kw;Wk;

¶79

HAY fpNuL njhopyhsh;fs; nra;fpwhh;fs;. xNu tifahd Ntiy khWgl;l rk;gsk;. xNu tifahd Ntiyf;F khWgl;l gpuhtplz;l; gz;L.

¶80

xNu tifahd Ntiyf;F khWgl;l nkbf;fy; fpisk; ghyprp.

¶81

xNu tifahd Ntiyf;F khWgl;l ,uT \pg;l; mytd;];.

¶82

xNu tifahd Ntiyf;F khWgl;l ,wg;G ghyprp.

¶83

VdNt eph;thfj;jpd; ,e;j gphpj;jhSk;

¶84

9

¶85

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶86

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶87

rl;lKiwfs; Kw;wpYk; jtwhdJ vd;Wk; epahakw;wJ vd;Wk; ,aw;if ePjpf;F KuzhzJ vd;Wk; eph;thfk; njhopyhsh; ey;tho;T mbg;gilapy; rl;lk; kw;Wk; njhopy;Jiw mikjp topKiwfs; kPwp cs;sdh; vd;Wk; mjhtJ eph;thfk; nrf;\d; 2(S), 25-T, 25-U kw;Wk; nrf;\d 1(a), (c), 4(f), 5(a)(b)y; Ie;jhtJ ml;ltizapy; njhopw;jfuhW rl;lk; 1947 kPwp cs;shh;fs; vd;W njhptpj;Js;sdh;.''

¶88

(12)The Conciliation Officer further referred to the reply of the Management

¶89

to the aforesaid demands as follows:-

¶90

'' vdNt HAY epiy gzpahsh;fspd; Cjpa njhiffs; S epiy njhopyhsh;fsplkpUe;J NtWgLfpwJ vd;Wk; ,e;j gzpahsh;fSf;F Vw;fdNt mth;fs; Kbf;f Ntz;ba tUlhe;jpu Fwpf;Nfhs;fs; xt;nthU tUlj;jpw;Fk; nfhLf;fg;gl;bUf;Fk; vd;Wk; HAY epiy gzp vd;gJ vkJ epWtdj;jpy; 15 Mz;LfSf;F Nkyhf ,Ue;J tUfpwJ vd;Wk; nrd;idapy; kl;Lk; HAY 6 gzpahsh;fs; 2005 Kjy; S epiy gzpahsh;fNshL gzp Ghpe;J tUfpwhh;fs; vd;Wk; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fs; ntF rkPgj;jpy; epWtdj;jpy;

¶91

10

¶92

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶93

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶94

mwpKfg;gLj;jg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk; kDjhuh; rq;fk;

¶95

mq;fPfhpf;fg;gl;l rq;fk; b.vr;.vy;.> AFL epWtdj;jpd; J}jQ;ry; tpahghuj;jpid vLj;Jf; nfhz;l ehs; Kjy; eph;thf epiyg; gzpahsh;fspd; ghh;nfa;dpq;

¶96

Kftuhf ,Ue;J tUfpwJ vd;Wk; rq;fj;jpw;F S

¶97

epiy kw;Wk; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fSf;fpilNa ,Ue;J tUk; tpj;jpahrq;fs; gw;wp ed;F njhpAk; vd;Wk; 2001k; Mz;L Kjy; ve;j xU Nfhhpf;ifAk; kDjhuh; rq;fj;jpdhy; itf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk; 2012y; jd;Dila fle;j Nfhhpf;if gl;baypy; jhd; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fisg; nghWj;J mwpf;if vOg;gpAs;sJ vd njhptpj;Js;shh;.

¶98

vdnt S epiy gzpahsh;fisg; nghWj;Jk; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fisg; nghWj;Jk; vOg;gg;gl;l Nfhhpf;iffs; khWgl;lit vd;Wk; S epiy gzpahsh;fSk; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fSk; xNu khjphpahd Ntiyfis nra;Ak; NghJ mth;fSila Nfhhpf;iffs; xNu khjphpahf ,Uf;Fk; vd;Wk; rq;fj;jpd; eph;thfpfs; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fshf khwpAs;sjhy; rq;fk; ,t;thwhd mbg;gilaw;w jfuhwpid vOg;gpajhfTk; cz;ikapy; rq;fk; Kjypy; N` epiy gzpahsh;fisg; nghWj;J xU Nfhhpf;if itj;J Kbtpy; rq;fNk mth;fs; njhopw; jfuhW

¶99

11

¶100

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶101

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶102

rl;lj;jpd; MSiff;Fs; tukhl;lhh;fs; vd;Wk; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fisg; nghWj;J vf;Nfhhpf;ifAk; typAWj;jkhl;lhh;fs; vd;Wk; rkur mYtyh; Kd;dhy; 10.12.2014e; Njjpapl;l 12(3) xg;ge;jj;jpid ifnahg;gkpl;lij nghWj;J epYitapy; ,Ue;J eltbf;iffis KbTf;F nfhz;L te;Jtpl;lhh;fs; vd;Wk; rq;fj;jpw;F S epiy gzpahsh;fs; kw;Wk; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fs; ,UtUk; ,UNtW tifahdth;fs; vd;gJ rq;fj;jpw;F njhpAk; vd;gJ HAY epiyapid Nfhhpf;if gl;baypy; mjidg; nghWj;J njhopyhsh; tpNuhj Nghf;F nfhz;Ls;sJ vd;gJk; Kw;wpYkhf ngha; kw;Wk; mbg;gil mw;wjhFk; vd;Wk; S epiy kw;Wk; HAY epiy gzpahsh;fis NtWgLj;jp ghh;f;fpwhh;fs; vd;Wk; S epiy gzpahsh;fSf;F HAY epiy gzpahsh;fspd; fhypaplq;fspy; epakpf;fg;gLtjw;F ve;j jilAk; ,y;iy vd;Wk; cz;ikapy; S epiy njhopyhsh;fs; vg;NghJ HAY epiyj; njhopyhsh;fs; fhypaplj;jpw;F tpz;zg;gpj;jhYk; mitfis fUj;jpy; nfhz;L mth;fis HAY epiyf;F gzp cah;T nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ njhptpj;Js;sJ.

¶103

(13)From the above, it is clear that before the Labour Conciliation Officer,

¶104

12

¶105

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶106

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶107

the demand of the Union was that the Management was adopting divide

¶108

and rule policy by deliberately neglecting to discuss the issue of wage revision with regard to Hay Grade employees despite, the two performing identical functions. The Management disputed the demand stating that the Hay Grade employees did not perform identical work, the Hay Grade employees were not workmen and therefore, the Management was not bound to negotiate with the Union regarding Hay Grade employees. As conciliation did not materialise, the Conciliation Officer submitted his Failure Report and based on the Failure Report of the Labour Conciliation Officer-III, the Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication in G.O.Ms.No.669, dated 29.11.2018. The dispute referred to, reads as follows:-

¶109

''Whether the demand of the Union seeking abolition of different grades of workmen doing same set of jobs divided into two grades such as 'S Grade' and 'Hay Grade' giving different pay scale for the same set of work, by following divide and rule policy, by imposing different provident fund, medical claim policy, night shift allowance, life policy which is unfair labour practice imposed upon the workmen is justified? If yes,

¶110

13

¶111

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶112

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶113

pass appropriate orders.''

¶114

(14)In the back drop of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the Government referred the dispute on the basis of the Conciliation Failure Report, wherein it was clearly recorded that there was a dispute regarding unfair labour practice of the Management in neglecting to discuss the issue of wage revision with regard to the Hay Grade employees despite their performing identical functions like S grade employees.

¶115

(15)A reading of the reference shows that it is broadly worded. IN the reference, the divide and rule policy adopted by the Management, is referred to. From the demand raised by the Union, it is clear that the divide and rule policy complained of, related to the refusal of the Management to negotiate with the Union, the wage revision for Hay Grade employees. The demand for bargaining rights was only a means for participation in the negotiations as a method to resolve discrimination. The Management's contention that the relief claimed in the claim petition before the Labour Court, extinguished the dispute, cannot be countenanced, since the claim though was for merger of the cadres, the underlying cause was the same – discriminatory treatment by the Management. The validity of the reference depends on the understanding

¶116

14

¶117

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶118

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶119

of the dispute referred. If the dispute is construed in the broad sense of a challenge to discriminatory treatment of similarly placed workmen, then the request for merger represents only a consequential remedy to remove the discrimination and therefore, the reference cannot be held to be invalid for that reason. This Court, is therefore of the view that the contention of the petitioner that the reference was bad since it did not reflect the actual dispute raised by the Union, deserves to be rejected as this Court finds, on a broad reading of the reference, that the demand made by the Union was well within the scope of the reference.

¶120

(16)The contention regarding the staleness of the reference, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid reasoning would also apply to the said contention. This Court is also of the opinion that in a way, the said contention is linked to the Section 18[1] Settlement and its terms which is already decided against the Management in the writ petition. Therefore, this Court rejects the said contention also. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the Management in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Commissioner and Secretary, Labour Department [1998 [1] LLN 172] , is not applicable to the facts of the case

¶121

15

¶122

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶123

(17)Hence, this Court finds no merit in the review application and therefore,

¶124

Rev.Applw.No.138/2024

¶125

since this Court has found that the demand has not become stale.

¶126

(17)Hence, this Court finds no merit in the review application and therefore,