The petitioners are aggrieved with Exhibit P4 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam [hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”] in a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government. The award is assailed on grounds of the same being in violation of the long term settlement with the Unions and service conditions applicable to the employees of different units being regulated by separate Standing Orders and failure of the Tribunal to take note of the different working conditions existing in the two different units. One another contention raised against the award is, the purported findings of the Tribunal based on an out of Court settlement reached by the Management and the representative Unions in another unit. The dispute referred has its genesis in a dispute raised in one of the units of the petitioner-Company regarding the status of ITI holders. 2. The petitioner is a Company, having four units, engaged in the manufacture and distribution of electrical and allied engineering equipments as also the servicing of the same. The management of the units is by one entity and the employees are transferable from one unit to another. Despite the management asserting that such transfers are made only on the request of the workmen; the fact that the workmen are transferable is not in dispute. The management has four production units and a Corporate Office at Cochin.
3. The present dispute relates to the Kundara unit of the management, in which the ITI holders sought parity with identically situated persons in the Mamala unit. The grievance was with respect to treating them as “skilled workmen”. Admittedly, on appointment, ITI holders were treated as semi-skilled workers and they attained 'skilled' status only on gaining experience of ten years. A dispute arose in the Mamala unit; with respect to uniformity of grade and scales as between Mamala and Kundara units. The dispute was referred for adjudication, by I.D.No.3 of 1985. The issue referred was answered, finding that there is similarity in the nature of work in between the two units, which; coupled with the transferability of workmen between the units raises a presumption for maintenance of uniformity in grade and scales as between Mamala and Kundara units. The said award has attained finality.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the ITI holders, in the Mamala unit, were treated as skilled workmen. In fact, there was a separate dispute raised with respect to the issue of the status of ITI holders, which was adjudicated in I.D.No.47 of 1987. The issue was answered, granting 27 semi-skilled workmen the grade of skilled workmen; and another dispute raised as I.D.No.4 of 1989 seeking similar relief to another 65 workmen, was settled out of Court, granting them also skilled status. The contention that there are other ITI holders recruited as semi-skilled workers and they are as such continuing in all the four units. The reliance placed on I.D.No.3 of 1985, hence, would not help the workmen of the Kundara unit, is the contention.
5. The Management had also contended before the Tribunal that different Standing Orders were applicable to the different units and there were settlements entered into with the Unions of each unit, settling the promotion policy. The same is also evident from the documents produced in the dispute. However, when transfer is a necessary incidence of service in all the four units, it is not clear as to how the various settlements would operate in the different units. In any event, it is not the working conditions which are disputed herein; nor is the promotion policy in the units. The dispute is as to whether ITI holders can be treated as 'skilled' workmen. Admittedly on a dispute raised, similarly placed employees of the Mamala unit, who were ITI holders, were granted the status of skilled workmen. Admittedly such grant emanated from the adjudication in a dispute referred by the Government to the Tribunal. I.D.No.3 of 1985 found the service in both the units at Mamala and Kundara to be identical and also found that the employees in the said two units are entitled to identical grades and scales of pay. This Court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry as to the work carried on in the two units and whether the entitlement could be found on facts. The Tribunal had, at the earlier point of time in I.D.No.3 of 1985, found that parity should be maintained. Going by the impugned award in the present case, it is clear that the management was not able to put forth any contra evidence to dispel the earlier findings. In such circumstance, considering the confined jurisdiction exercised by this Court, this Court cannot interfere with the findings in Exhibit P4 with respect to the status being granted to the ITI holders in the petitioner-Company.
6. In August, 1992, ITI holders working in the Mamala unit were agreed to be granted “skilled grade” from the date of their confirmation as semi-skilled workers and disbursal of financial benefits with effect from 08.08.1992, the date of agreement. The ITI holders in the Kundara unit, by the present reference raised a dispute claiming parity of grades with that of the similarly situated ITI holders in the Mamala unit. The Tribunal mainly relied on the award in I.D.No.3 of 1985, which granted parity of grades and scales to the workmen of the Mamala unit, and granted the same relief to the workmen of the Kundara unit.
7. It is to be noticed that the challenge to Exhibit P4 had been pending before this Court for the last ten years and the dispute itself was raised in the year 1998, which ended in an award in 2004. The respondent-Unions have not chosen to file a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal was careful while granting the award, to grant benefits only from the date of reference of the dispute. In the earlier case also though the ITI holders were granted skilled status from the date of confirmation, monetary benefits were deferred and the same was granted only with effect from 08.08.1992. In the present case also, hence, there should be some mitigation with respect to monetary benefits, especially since the petitioner-Company would be mulcted with a huge liability at this point of time. Hence, it is directed that though fixation should be made with effect from the date of reference, the employees would be entitled to only 50% of the backwages. It is also made clear that the same would be applicable only to those employees, in the Kundara unit, who were ITI holders who were continuing in the management, as on the date of reference.
The writ petition, hence, would stand partly allowed, on the above terms. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
vku/-
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge ( true copy )