The correctness and sustainability of 'Clause iv' of Ext.P1 minutes of the joint meeting convened by the Ministry of Industries and the Ministry of Finance on 16.07.2007, providing for various benefits and norms with regard to the conditions of service under the second respondent, fixing the cut off date as 1.7.2007 for the workers to have had the total service of 20 years or more, for claiming the additional working incentive of ₹ 250/- per month on pro-rata production basis, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, they are workers of the second respondent Company. After discussions between the management and employees, Ext.P1 minutes were entered into with regard to the anomaly in paying the various incentives and such other particulars in connection with the service. By virtue of Clause iv of Ext.P1, it was stipulated that the workers who had completed 20 years 'as on 1.7.2007' will be given additional working incentive of ₹ 250/- per month, on pro-rata production basis, which Clause according to the petitioners is arbitrary and unconscionable one and hence the challenge. It is stated that the petitioners have not completed 20 years 'as on 1.7.2007' and as such, not get the benefit of Ext.P1. Non consideration of the grievance made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the cut off date of '1.7.2007', simultaneously seeking for a direction to be given to the concerned respondent, to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 to all the workers who have completed 20 years, though after 1.7.2007.
3. The relief sought for has been resisted by the second respondent by filing a counter affidavit, mainly pointing out that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not chosen to implead the various Trade Unions who had agreed to the conditions as borne by Ext.P1 itself. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that, subsequent to Ext.P1, there were further negotiations with regard to the conditions of service and such other particulars between the representatives of the management and those of the Employees/Trade Unions, leading to Ext. R2(a) dated 18.06.2010. The petitioners have not mentioned anything with regard to Ext.R2(a) in the writ petition filed in the year 2011. As such, the petitioner have not approached this Court with clean hands and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard both the sides in detail.
5. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that the cut off date was prescribed to extend benefit to the workers, as on the relevant date, which is pursuant to negotiations and settlement arrived at, between the management and employees. Ext.P1 itself discloses the recommendations and suggestions to revive the unit, which was almost in doldrums and that the representatives of the workers agreed to the suggestions and assured whole hearted support for attaining the prescribed production target per month.
6. This Court does not find any arbitrariness or illegality with regard to the course pursued by the second respondent and the challenge raised by the petitioners is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. The subsequent developments leading to Ext.R2 (a) agreement dated 18.6.2010, executed between the representatives of the management and the Employees/Trade Unions have not been brought to the notice of this Court from the part of the petitioners. None of the Unions has been impleaded in the party array, and the petitioners have approached this Court directly by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. If there is any grievance for the workers/petitioners, it is always open for them to raise an 'industrial dispute' as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act; which in turn has to be considered and adjudicated by the appropriate forum, based on the pleadings and evidence to be let in, which does not come within in the realm of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-