Partly allowed

Shriram Rayons Kota v. Industrial Tribunal Kota and O

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2018SAW/78/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench allowed management appeal in part, upholding transfer as unfair practice against active workmen but annulling compensation for those who resigned or retired, while modifying compensation for active workmen to Rs. 1 lakh at 6% interest per year based on compromise offer.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at 6% p.a. granted to Amar Ghosal, Dhani Ram, and Vedpal; denied to Gopal Kant, Chandra Bhan, Surendra Kumar, and Jagat Narain.

Shriram Rayons Kota Vs Industrial Tribunal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.78/2006

¶3

With D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.437/2006 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4317/2001

¶4

Shriram Rayons, Kota, Shri Ram Nagar, Udyogpuri P.O. Kota

-324004

----Appellant

Versus

Industrial Tribunal, Kota

¶9

President, Shriram Rayons, Karamchari Sangh, Kota

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satish Pareek for Mr. M.D. Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap for respondent no.2

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶13

Judgment

¶14

26/11/2018

¶15

Appellant, Shriram Rayons, Kota, has approached this court by way of present appeal assailing the judgment dated 29.11.2005 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In the writ petition challenge was made to the award dated 16.04.2001 of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Kota. The Industrial Tribunal, by the aforesaid award, answered the reference made to it at the instance of the respondent no.2 President, Shriram Rayons, Karamchari Sangh, Kota, in favour of the workmen on the question whether the action of the management in promoting and transferring the workmen

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[SAW-78/2006]

¶18

(peons and drivers) without their consent was legally justified and if not, what relief they are entitled to.

¶19

The respondent union filed the statement of claim before the Industrial Tribunal alleging transfer of Gopal Kant, Surendra Kumar, Chandra Bhan, Ved Pal, Jagat Narain and Dhani Ram driver from Delhi and Amar Ghosal Class IV from Kolkata to Kota. As per the award, workmen Gopal Kant and Chandra Bhan resigned from their job, whereas workmen Surendra Kumar and Jagat Narain took voluntary retirement. The dispute therefore now survives in respect of workmen Amar Ghosal, Dhani Ram and Vedpal. The Industrial Tribunal, after adjudication of the dispute held that the workmen were low paid employees and the action of the management in transferring them from Delhi and Kolkata to a distant place at Kota without their consent was legally not justified. The Tribunal held only three workmen, namely, Amar Ghosal, Dhani Ram and Vedpal entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), which was ordered to be paid to each of them within one month, with further direction that if the management failed to make payment of the amount of compensation within one month, the workmen would be entitled to for interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Industrial Tribunal further held that since the management has failed to produce on record any material to substantiate as to when workmen Gopal Kant and Chandra Bhan resigned and that workmen Surendra Kumar and Jagat Narain took voluntary retirement, considering that they also upon transfer joined their duties at Kota and were subjected to mental and financial agony, each one of them was held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and if the payment was

¶20

(3 of 5)

¶21

[SAW-78/2006]

¶22

not made within one month, they would further be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the statement of claim.

¶23

Mr. Satish Pareek, brief holder of Mr. M.D. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant management, has argued that there was no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the four workmen, who had either resigned or took voluntary retirement from service, particularly when in the beginning of the award it gave a finding that the industrial dispute did not survive for these four workmen. It is argued that the transfer of the workmen, even if they were low paid, was made in accordance with the Standing Order. The workmen accepted such transfer and joined their duties at Kota. The Standing Orders of Kota could not be applied to the workmen who were not originally engaged at Kota and were working at Delhi and Kolkata. Besides, the Standing Orders came into effect on 27.01.1986. Clause 32 of the Standing Orders specifies that transfer shall take place with the consent of the workmen. The appointment letters of the workmen in this case contained a stipulation that they could be transferred to Kota plant of the management. No consent was required to be taken from the workmen for their transfer. The award of the Industrial Tribunal is based on surmises and conjectures.

¶24

Mr. Suresh Kashyap, the learned counsel for the respondent Union, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the award of the Industrial Tribunal. His argument is that no interference is called for in the award of the Industrial Tribunal and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court, both of whom have concurrently

¶25

(4 of 5)

¶26

[SAW-78/2006]

¶27

decided in favour of the respondent Union. In so far as factual disputes are concerned, their finding is not open to be interfered with in the appeal before the Division Bench.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the material on record.

¶29

The Industrial Tribunal in para 7 of the award has given a specific finding that the dispute survives only in respect of three workmen, namely, Amar Ghosal, Dhani Ram and Vedpal, since the workmen Gopal Kant and Chandra Bhan resigned from service and the workmen Surendra Kumar and Jagat Narain took voluntary retirement. The learned Industrial Tribunal having held so, in our view, could not have still awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the four workmen. The learned Single Judge has in the impugned judgment not considered this aspect of the matter. However, so far the above named three workmen are concerned, the Industrial Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge have concurrently held that the transfer of the low paid workmen from the places Delhi and Kolkata to a distant place at Kota was violative of Clause 32 of the Standing Orders. The management witness Mahaveer Prasad admitted that the facilities given to the workmen were stopped immediately after they were transferred to Kota. The Industrial Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge both have therefore rightly held that this amounted to unfair labour practice as the poor workmen who come from the lowest rug of the society, could ill afford the transfer at a distant place from their permanent native place on a meager salary/wages. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as also the award of the Industrial Tribunal. However, considering that the observations of this court made in its order

¶30

(5 of 5)

¶31

[SAW-78/2006]

¶32

dated 11.07.2018 where offer of the workmen was recorded that they were ready and willing to have the matter settled on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, the award is modified in the terms that while no compensation shall be payable to workmen, namely, Gopal Kant, Chandra Bhan, Surendra Kumar and Jagat Narain, who have either resigned or took voluntary retirement from the service, all other workmen, namely, Amar Ghosal, Dhani Ram and Vedpal shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the statement of claim. Ordered accordingly.

¶33

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. This also disposes of the stay application.

¶34

Compliance be now made within a period of three months from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before the appellant management.

¶35

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶36

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶37

//Jaiman//28

Shriram Rayons Kota v. Industrial Tribunal Kota and O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Rayons Kota v. Industrial Tribunal Kota and O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manvendra Singh Vs State

Heena Khandelwal Vs Rajasthan High Court through Its Registrar (Examination)

Hotel Association of Jaipur Vs State

Ram Deo Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Power Control Corporation Vs C C E and S T Jaipur-I

Ganga Sahai S/O Sh Nanga Vs Union of India