Case on Industrial Dispute Essay

Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’), has been constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The respondent which is a Trade Union of the appellant-Corporation, filed an Application before the Labour Court, Dehradun under Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, praying for a declaration that the 15 persons who were appointed on contract basis as ‘drivers’ and ‘conductors’ as shown in the annexed chart, be declared as regular and substantive workmen of the Corporation. It was also prayed in the said Application that the concerned workmen be given all the benefits and facilities of regular employees. The aforesaid Application was allowed by the Labour Court, Dehradun by its order dated 19. 9. 2001. The Labour Court directed that the concerned workmen be given the minimum wages admissible to the regular employees in the pay scales of ‘drivers’ and ‘conductors’. The Labour Court also held that the said workmen are employees of the Corporation. It is not disputed that the concerned workmen were appointed on contract basis. Before the Labour Court, the Corporation had contended that Rule 2 of U. P. S. R. T. C Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’) clearly mentions that these regulations shall not apply to employees working on contract basis. The persons working on contract basis filed Writ Petition No. 41349/1999 Kanchi Lal and others vs. U. P. S. R. T. C before the Allahabad High Court for grant of same benefits as the regular employees of the Corporation, but the said writ petition had been dismissed. However, the bjection of the Corporation was rejected by the Labour Court. It filed a writ petition thereafter before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. It was contended in the writ petition by the appellant that the concerned workmen had not been selected in terms of the process of selection required for appointment of regular employees and hence they cannot be directed to be given minimum pay scales of regular employees. It was also contended that the Labour Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by passing the impugned order dated. In our opinion, the Labour Court could not have granted the relief it granted by the order dated 19. 9. 2001, as that could only have been granted on a regular reference under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act or under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. A perusal of the order of the Labour Court dated 19. 9. 2001 shows that it has not referred to any standing order of the appellant. On the other hand, paragraph 3 of the said order refers to Rule 2 of the 1981 Regulations which clearly provides that the Regulations do not apply to employees engaged on contract basis. In our opinion, the Labour Court cannot amend the Regulations while hearing an application under Section 11-C of the Industrial Disputes Act. As already stated above, the scope of Section 11-C is limited to decide a question arising out of an application or interpretation of a standing order and the Labour Court cannot go beyond the scope of Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. For the reasons given above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order of the Labour Court dated 19. 9. 2001 are set aside. However, it is open to the concerned workmen to raise their grievances before the concerned authority under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act or under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, as the case may be, and if the State Government refers such a dispute to the Labour Court or Tribunal, we hope that the same will be decided expeditiously. No costs