Rajasthan High Court
CW/1104/1990 of RAJ.TONGSTAN DEVELOPMENT Vs RAJ.CONGSTAN CORP. on 12 May 1999
No.1104/1990 Rajasthan Tungston Development Corpn.Employees Union Vs. Rajasthan Tungston Development Corpn.Ltd.& Anr. Date of Order :: 10th February, 2006 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Vijay Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondents. .... The
SBCivil Writ Petition No.1104/1990
Rajasthan Tungston Development Corpn.Employees UnionVs.Rajasthan Tungston Development Corpn.Ltd.& Anr.
Date of Order :: 10[th] February, 2006
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. Vijay Mehta, for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondents.
....
The petitioner, a registered trade union,preferred the instant writ petition claiming thereliefs mentioned hereinunder:- “(a)therespondentsbedirectedtoregularise the services of the workmenworking in the Balda Project from the dateof their appointment.
(b)the respondents be directed to pay salaryof the workers engaged in the Balda Projectin the pay scale of Rs.780-10-865 from thedate of their appointment.”
The petitioner while claiming the reliefs asabove urged that the employees working in RajasthanTungston Development Corporation Ltd. at Balda inDistrict Sirohi were neither taken on regular cadrenor they were paid wages in the pay scale prescribedi.e. of Rs.700-10-865. The writ petition by an orderdated 12.5.1999 came to be accepted with thedirections as under:- “I have considered the rival submissions.When there is a regular pay scale forunskilled workers, then respondents shouldgive such pay scale to the daily wagesemployees who have been working since long.Therefore, a direction is issued to therespondents to award the pay scale ofunskilled worker, to the daily rated workerscontinuously working from 1984. The pay scalewill be given to the workers from the date ofwrit petition.”
The respondent No.2 i.e. Hindustan ZincLimited being aggrieved by judgment dated 12.5.1999preferred a special appeal under Section 18 of theRajasthan High Court Ordinance before Division Benchof this Court stating therein that as a consequence ofan agreement made on 13.1.1991 the Rajasthan TungstonDevelopment Corporation Ltd. was acquired by theHindustan Zinc Ltd., as such the Hindustan Zinc Ltd.is required to bear the liabilities arose after13.1.1991 and the court by judgment dated 12.5.1999allowed the writ petition without having any notice tothe Hindustan Zinc Ltd. The special appeal preferredby the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. by judgment dated 28.1.2001came to be accepted by setting aside the judgmentdated 12.5.1999. However, before disposal of specialappeal the Rajasthan Tungston Development CorporationLtd. complied with the directions given by this Courtby judgment dated 12.5.1999 by making payment to theworkmen concerned in the regular pay scale upto13.1.1999. In view of the fact above the only question now survives is with regard to payment of wages to theemployees concerned in regular pay scale after13.1.1999.
A reply to the writ petition has been filedon behalf of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. stating therein thatall the workmen who were earlier working with theRajasthan Tungston Development Corporation Ltd. andwhose services were transferred to the answeringrespondent have already been retrenched from services.They also entered into an agreement with the employer.A copy of the agreement is placed on record. The termsof the agreement are as under:- “Terms of settlement
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) Both the parties agreed that all the 20laid off workmen, as per details attached inAnnexure-1, will stand retrenched from theBalda Tungsten Project w.e.f. 30[th] November,1998.Accordingly,dueretrenchmentcompensation as per the provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules madethereunder shall be paid by the managementof Hindustan Zinc Limited on 30[th] Nov., 1998at Balda. Signatory representative ofworkmen agreed to inform all workersaccordingly and this may be treated asnotice of retrenchment.
(2) The workmen shall be entitled to Gratuityas per provision of Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 and Rules made thereunder.
(3) The workmen shall also be entitled toreceive their due CPF accumulation asavailable in their credit as on 30.11.1998after completing required procedure.
(4) Management agrees that in case Companyrestart the mining work at Balda, theretrenched workmen will have right for re-appointment as per provisions of theI.D.Act, 1947 & Rules made thereunder,subject to the condition that they areotherwise physically fit for employment asper the rules of the Company.
(5) The workmen also agreed that if any legalcase is pending against the Company beforeany court of law, the same shall standwithdrawn by virtue of signing thissettlement.
(6) Both the parties agreed to submitimplementation report of this settlement tothe Conciliation Officer and AssistantLabour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer latestby 15.12.98 failing which it will bepresumed that the settlement has been fullyimplemented.”
It is stated by counsel for respondentHindustan Zinc Ltd. that in view of the terms ofagreement the instant petition for writ has becomeinfructuous.
I have heard counsel for the parties and alsoperused the record.
The condition No.5 of the terms of settlementclearly provides that the workmen agreed forwithdrawal of all the disputes pending against theCompany before any court of law. In view of itapparently the present petition for writ does notsurvive. However, it is stated by counsel for thepetitioner that the condition No.5 is only with regardto retrenchment and lay off and not with regard topayment of wages and regular pay scale.
I do not find any force in the contentionmade by counsel for the petitioner. The condition No.5refers all legal cases pending against the Companybefore any court of law instituted by the workmen. Itis further pertinent to note that the agreement issigned on behalf of all the workmen, cause of which issought to be espoused by the union. When all theworkmen in their individual capacity have alreadyentered into an agreement with the employer, then thepetitioner which is an agent of workmen survives withno cause to be agitated in present writ petition.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.
kkm/ps.