Case: Workmen of The Rajasthan Atomic Power Project Vs. Management of The Rajasthan Atomic Power Project

1. The following dispute was referred under S.10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Central Government IndustrialCourt, Jabalpur :"Whether the action of the Management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Post Office Anushakti, via Kota in giving a notice of change, dated 20th March, 1973 under S.9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in so far as payment of overtime allowance to staff car drivers is concerned, is justified. If not, to what relief are they entitled ?"The dispute arose in the following manner. Prior to August 1, 1971 the motor vehicle drivers employed in the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, hereinafter called the Project, were being paidOn December 12, 1972 the Management of the Project gave notice to the General Secretary of the union under S.19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act conveying their intention to terminate the settlement, dated November 17, 1971 is so far as the staff car drivers were concerned. On the expiry of two months from the service of this notice, the Management served on the union a notice under S.9A of the Industrial Disputes Act proposing to effect a change in the conditions of service of the staff car drivers as indicated in the notice under S. 19(2). The notice under S. 9A stated that with effect from April 12, 1973 the staff car drivers would be entitled to overtime allowance as admissible to them under the Staff Rules and not under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. This gave rise to the dispute which, as earlier, was referred for adjudication to the Central Government IndustrialCourt, Jabalpur. Before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the Management that they had entered into the settlement dated November 17, 1971 under a mistaken belief that the staff car drivers were covered by the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 but they found later that the definition of "motor transport worker" in S.2(h) of the Motor Transport "Workers" Act, 1961 did not include the staff car drivers of the project. The Tribunal agreed that the staff car drivers were not motor transport workers within the meaning of S. 2(h) and held that there was force in the contention of the Management that they were wrongly included in the settlement and that the termination of the settlement in so far as it was concerned the staff car drivers was, therefore, justified. The Tribunal found that the staff car drivers were not entitled to any relief and made his award accordingly. The workmen of the project represented by their union have preferred this appeal by special leave challenging the validity of the award.

Court's reasoning:
3. It seems to us that the question whether the staff car drivers of the project were motor transport workers as defined in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 was not relevant to the issue before the Tribunal. The workmen were not seeking to enforce their right to overtime allowance under the Motor Transport Workers Act. The settlement dated November 17, 1971 resolved the existing dispute as to the rate of overtime allowance payable to the motor vehicle drivers by providing in one of the terms that they should be paid overtime in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The agreement making the provisions as to overtime in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 applicable to the motor vehicle drivers employed in the Project itself suggests that the parties were aware that the Act has its own force did not apply to the motor vehicle drivers. If these motor vehicle drivers were governed by the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, then no question of applying that Act for a settlement between the parties could possibly arise. It is not disputed that motor vehicle drivers include staff car drivers. The right asserted by the staff car drivers arises on the settlement and does not flow out of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, and it appears from the memorandum of settlement that it was arrived at "after protracted discussion." In these circumstances we do not think that it could be said that the management of the Project entered into the settlement on a mistaken belief. As the award proceeds on the managements case of "mistaken belief" which we do not consider acceptable