IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 8613 of 2002(A) ---------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. INSTRUMENTATION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE INSTRUMENTATION,EMPLOYEES UNION, KANJIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 3. THE INSTRUMENTATION WORKERS UNION, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH) SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SRI.RAJESH NAIR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 8613 of 2002 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.IL/CPD/2/P&R/91-92/70 DT. 18.12.91 PERTAINING TO LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT IN I.D.NO.24/94DTD 25.7.1994 FILED BY R2 BEFORE R1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT IN I.D.NO.24/94 DTD 24.8.1994 FILED BY R3 BEFORE R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 27.9.1994 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT FILED BY R2 DT. 7.12.94. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT FILED BY R3 DT. 10.1.1995. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD 30.11.1999 PASSED BY R1 IN I.D. NO. 24/94 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 8613 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the management in I.D. No.24/94 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. They are challenging Ext.P7 award passed by the Labour Court in that industrial dispute. The issue referred for adjudication was regarding the criteria for availing Leave Travel Concession facility in the management establishment. Although the reference is not happily worded, apparently the parties joined issue on the question as to whether Ext.P1 Circular issued by the management in the matter of availing of Leave Travel Concession facility to the employees of the management is an alteration of the service conditions of the employees. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the said circular was issued in violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore not valid and proper. This award is under challenge before me. 2. The management raises three contentions. First is that the issue referred for adjudication was “criteria for availing O.P. No.8613/2002 2 Leave Travel Concession facility” whereas what has been considered is the validity of Ext.P1 Circular. The second contention is that there was no pleading to the effect that Ext.P1 Circular has been issued in violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Lastly, they contend that Ext.P1 does not in any way alter the service conditions of the workmen. On the other hand, according to them, it is only an additional concession granted to the workers in the matter of availing of Leave Travel Concession. Counsel points out that as per Clause 10 original Leave Travel Concession Rules in respect of all matters, which are not specifically covered by the said rules, the Leave Travel Concession Rules of the Central Government in so far as they are not inconsistent with the rules shall be followed. The counsel would contend that as per the Central Civil Services Leave Travel Concession Rules a break in service of even one day on account of unauthorized absence would entail denial of leave travel concession facility to a workman for the year. On the other hand, by Ext.P1 Circular that one day has been enhanced to 74 days and only if an employee remains on leave without wages or absent for 75 days or more in a block of 2 years leave travel concession O.P. No.8613/2002 3 would be denied to them or their dependant family members. 3. In answer to the same, the counsel for the Union would contend that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner against the award are sustainable. According to him although the issue referred for adjudication is the criteria for availing Leave Travel Concession, the parties joined issue only on the question of validity of Ext.P1 Circular and therefore the reference order should be read in the light of the dispute raised by the Union before the Labour Officer. Regarding the second contention on the absence of pleadings regarding violation of Section 9A, he would point out that although the words ‘Section 9A’ are not used in the claim statement, a reading of the claim statement itself would show that what was essentially canvassed by the Union was validity of alteration of service conditions by Ext.P1 circular in violation of Section 9A. Regarding the third contention, the counsel for the Union would contend that if the workmen were put on notice as required under Section 9A they would have been in a better position to bargain, which opportunity was denied to the Union, as a result of which Ext.P1 Circular worked to the prejudice of the workmen. O.P. No.8613/2002 4 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. As far as the first two contentions of the management are concerned, I do not find any merit in the same. Although reference order is not happily worded, it cannot be disputed that the dispute raised by the Union was in respect of the validity of Ext.P1 Circular issued by the management. That being so, the reference order has to be read in conjunction with the dispute raised by the Union before the Labour Officer which was only validity of Ext.P1 Circular. Regarding the second contention, a reading of the award, wherein the material particulars in the claim statement of the union have been extracted, it is clear that although there is no specific words ‘Section 9A’ mentioned therein, essentially the contention of the Union was that Ext.P1 Circular was issued altering the service conditions of the workmen in violation of Section 9A. That being so, I do not find any merit in the second contention also. 5. However, it is altogether a different matter when it comes to the third contention. Although there was no provision in the original Leave Travel Concession Rules to the effect that persons who are on leave without wages or absent O.P. No.8613/2002 5 without leave would be disentitled to Leave Travel Concession Rules, Clause 10 of Rules specifically provided thus: “In respect of all matters which are not specifically covered in the above Rules, the Leave Travel Concession Rules of Central Government in so far as they are not inconsistent with these Rules shall be followed. However, cases presenting special features of hardship shall be referred to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director for decision and his decision/interpretation shall be final” Therefore essentially for implementation of the Leave Travel Concession Rules, the Central Government Civil Services Leave Travel Concession Rules have to be looked into, which is not dispute before me. As per the Central Government Civil Services Leave Travel Concession Rules, a person who remains absent unauthorisedly for a single day would also be ineligible for leave travel concession facility for the year. Therefore as per the original Leave Travel Concession Rules, the workmen were not eligible to Leave Travel Concession facility if they were on leave without wages or absent without leave even for a single day. By Ext.P1 Circular the management was benevolent enough to bring in a relaxed rule whereby only those employees who remain on leave without wages or absent for 75 days or more in a block of 2 years is rendered O.P. No.8613/2002 6 disentitled for Leave Travel Concession facility. That being so, I am of opinion that this is an additional concession given to the workmen in the matter of availing of Leave Travel Concession rules, which would not come within the scope of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act at all. In that view, the finding of the Labour Court that Ext.P1 Circular has been issued in violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly Ext.P7 award is quashed and it is held that the Union is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by them in the industrial dispute. The original petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P. No.8613/2002 7