III CONSULTATION

Q.1. Indian General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. carries on a business of inland water
transport and maintain a huge number of wharves, jetties, godowns, etc., at different stations in
India. One such set is at Visakhapanami in Andhra Pradesh, where many workmen are
employed. These men load and unload the Company’s vessels and help to transship goods from
railway wagons to vessels and vice versa. The company was a public utility concern and the
persons employed therein were "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There were
two unions of workmen in the establishment.

On 31.10.2016 both the unions gave a notice demanding 20 percent bonus and two months
average total wages as ex gratia for the accounting year 2014-15. The Company rejected the
demand. Thereupon workmen resorted to various acts of indiscipline, go-slow and persistent
refusal to work overtime. As a result of which the Company dismissed eight employees, after
framing charges against them and after giving each an opportunity to be heard.

On 15.11.2016 both unions served strike notices on the company. The Conciliation Officer
interfered but no settlement was arrived at between the company and the Unions. He accordingly
sent a failure report to the appropriate government. In the meantime during the pendency of
conciliation before the Conciliation Officer a large number of workmen went on strike on
26.11.2016. They forcibly entered the Company’s jetties and other working places, and
obstructed the work of loyal workmen. On 27.11.2016, the District Magistrate issued an order
under the Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain law and order. The Company declared a
lockout in the same day. On 10.12.2016 the Unions called off the strike. The Company lifted the
lockout on 15.12.2016. The Company dismissed those workmen whom it claimed to have
obstructed the loyal workmen during the strike. On 21.12.2016, 37 workmen were convicted for
violation of the order of the District Magistrate. On 22.12.2016 the Company dismissed them.

Identify the various legal provisions involved in the above situation and

(a) Is the order of dismissal valid?

(b) What is the remedy open to workmen under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
 (c) Elaborate each issue with relevant legal provisions and landmark judgments of the Apex
Court

Q.2. The employees of Visakaha Pharmacy Company started resorting to work to rule, go slow
and other related methods to show their grievance because they (the employees) thought that the
management had unilaterally revised the prices of canteen items without consulting the canteen
committee. The management view was that since the recognizes union’s registration was
cancelled due to non-submission return, therefore the management was not obliged to consult the
employees. Consequently, the management also felt that the canteen constituted with the
nominees of the recognized union ceased to be are preventative body. The Management entered
into an MOU with another registered union. The management constituted a canteen committee
with the cooperation of the registered, but not recognized union. During the strike there were
some disturbances and an accident in which an apprentice died. The management did not agree
to pay compensation on the plea that the deceased person was not an employee of the company.
This led to further unrest. The management applied to the appropriate government to allow them
a lockout on the pretext of threat to company’s property and personnel. In the meantime they
also insisted that unless employees sign a ‘good conduct’ certificate the workers will not be
allowed to enter the factory for work. A section of the workers were willing to sign but the other
refused to do so and dubbed the management as indulging in unfair labour practices.

Read the situation and answer the following questions with the help of Labour and
Industrial laws and relevant case laws;
a) Did the management resort to unfair labour Practices, Explain?
b) Is the management correct in creating the recognition as cancelled when the union’s
registration was cancelled due to some technical reasons and constituting another
canteen committee and holding discussions and signing MOU with another union?
c) Is this a case of strike or lock-out? Explain with necessary legal provisions.
Q.3. A clause of the Standing Orders of the Sabbam & Co, provide that "go slow" lactic on
the part of part of workmen will be treated as a serious misconduct for which management
Union which is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, but is not
recognized by the management, raises an industrial dispute demanding recognition of the
trade union and deletion of the clause treating go-slow as a serious misconduct from the
Standing Orders. The management rejects the demand stating that only 30 per cent of its
workmen are members of the union and go-slow is an anti-national activity. Thereafter the
workmen (unionist) adopt go-slow tactics under a common understanding. The management
gives notice to the workmen that if they do not resort to normal working at full speed within
24 hours they would be dismissed and actually dismisses 25 of its workmen (who are
members of the union) on the next day, who according to the management, do not resort,
even after notice, to the normal working at full speed. The remaining workmen go "on strike
demanding reinstatement of the 25 dismissed workmen. The appropriate Government refers
all the disputes between Burn & Co. and Burn & Co. Employees’ Union to an industrial
tribunal for adjudication and prohibits the continuance of the strike. Despite government’s
prohibitory order these fifty workmen continue to be on strike. Not only this but one day
some of these striking workmen become violent, assault the manager and damage the
Company’s building and other property. The management as a security measure declares
temporary closure of the company for an indefinite period.

On the basis of above facts answer the following questions in the light of relevant statutory
provisions and judicial decisions.

a) Can Sabbam & Co, raise an industrial dispute regarding the dismissal of 25 workmen
who are members of the union? Can Raise ID YES it is applicable because all the
workmen belong to the same union.
b) Does the dismissal of 25 workmen amount to an unfair labour practice? no pg.105
and 106.
c) Can Sabbam & Co. apply for modification of Standing Orders? If so, Describe other
methods, it can apply
d) Can go-slow tactics of workmen be regarded as a strike? Do industrial workmen
have a right to go-slow? Go slow
 e) If so. Can it be legally taken away by the Standing Orders?
f) Is strike after the issuance of prohibitory order issued by the Government legal . no
legal

What is ID? Is it strike or not?go slow strike

Q. 4. Lakshmi Manufacturing Company is a registered factory employing 620 people. It

produces spare parts for cars and scooters. Security Staff at the gate are vigilant and
regularly check people/vehicles going out of the factory to prevent theft of the company’s
material. On June 18, 2017, at 11 am, Rakesh a material chaser in the Services
Department went to the stores department to draw ten new GEC electric switches (15
amperes each) for some urgent breakdown job, Thereafter, he came to the cooperative
Credit Society office to Enquiry about his loan application, At 11.30 am he suddenly
remembered that he had to purchase a post-card from the post office (situated outside the
works gate). To write an urgent letter and thereafter go to his department situated at a
distance of about 1 lm from the stores department. The distance between the stores
department and the works gate is about 50 meters, Rakesh works in the general shift, i.e.,
from 7 am to 11.30 am and 12.30 PM to 4 PM. The lunch brake is from 11.30 am to
12.30 PM. During the period, workers are allowed to go out of the premises.

At 11.35 am, there was a telephone call to S M Kumar, Manager, Services Department from the
security Inspector, remand, that one Rakesh, T. No. 321 had been caught red-handed at the gate
by two sepcys Ramadhin and Trilochan, while trying to go out of the factory premises with ten
new GEC electric switches that were in a bag on his cycle.

In the preliminary enquiry, Rakesh confessed in writing that he was carrying switches by mistake
as he intended to come back to his department after buying a post-card. As per the procedure for
drawing materials in the Services Department on the basis of a written instruction in the logbook
from the foreman, the material chaser has to prepare the material requisition after entering the
details himself in the material requisition register. After getting the requisition signed by the
foreman and the departmental head, he has to go to the Stores department to draw the material. If
the material is heavy, he has to arrange for transport, Rakesh carried small items like switches,
fuses, etc., himself, to the department. Thereafter, he is supposed to hand over the material to the
foreman and obtain his signature in the materials requisition register.

The logbook as well as the materials requisition register showed that Rakesh had correctly
entered the GEC electric switches therein.

As per the Standing Order No. 17 (iii) of the company’s certified orders, Theft, fraud of
dishonesty in connection with Company’s business or property is a misconduct warranting
dismissal as per Standing order No. 18. The manager can issue a charge sheet and also punish
with dismissal any employee of his department, who is alleged to have committed an act of
misconduct.

1) Advise the Manager, Services Department, on the steps required to be taken in the case
referring to relevant legal provisions under the concerned labor legislation;

2.) In case the charges are proved, will you advise dismissal? Give reasons.

3) In case of dismissal, can workmen invoke appellate jurisdiction?

Q.5. Please read the case given below and answer the questions given at the end.

On March 25, 1996 at about 6.45 PM, the Duty Officer (Security), Kumar at the Work gate
informed to Rao, Electrical Engineer(Department Manager) on telephone that one Narayan,
supervisor of his department has been caught Red - handed at the Works gate while attempting to
steal one small electric motor and certain other spare parts used in the Electrical Dept. Rao was
requested to come to the Security Control Room, where a preliminary enquiry was to be held.

During the preliminary enquiry, it came to light that Narayan, Personnel No. 5824, Foreman,
came to the Works gate at 6.15 PM on his Let’s two wheeler bearing registration No. BRX 1421
(the number was not clearly visible). The works guard on duty, Krishna asked Narayan to stop
and open the tool–box that was hanging on the right side of the rear wheel. When it was opened
only one empty tiffin-box was found. Since the driver's seat appeared to be thicker and of
unusual size, the work guard enquired about the same from Narayan, and not being satisfied with
the reply, gave it a jerk. It was found that Narayan had constructed one box under the seat where
a 0.50 hp motor and eight 5 amps switches belonging to the company were concealed

On being asked, Narayan replied that he had attended a breakdown after 5 PM in the Mill and
replaced one 0.50 hp motor. The motor that was recovered was the defective one, but he could
not return it as the store-issuer had already left for home after his duty which ended at 5 PM. He
thought he would return the motor next day, as he had done many times in the past. He, however,
could not explain why he was carrying the 5 amps switches. Nor did he give any satisfactory
reason for not keeping the materials in the tool - box that was visible from outside, rather than
where these were kept. On checking up at the Security Control Room, it was found in the
presence of Narayan, that the electric motor recovered was in working condition.

As per the Company's Certified Standing Order No. 23 (iii), 'theft, fraud, or dishonesty in
connection with company’s business or property' is misconduct.

Questions:

a. Does it amount to misconduct? If it does so provide reasons?

b. Advise the Manager on the steps for handling the above case with reference to the
necessary provisions and related case laws.

Q.6. The 400 employees (teachers, minders, and cleaners) at Pen School for the Handicapped
have entered into wage negotiations with the school. They are represented by the People's Trade
Union who generally enjoys a very good relationship with management of the school. After three
wage negotiation meetings, the parties are nowhere near reaching settlement. This is largely due
to the fact that the school is facing a financial crisis because, and has very limited finances
available for the employees annual wage increase. The school has dismissed those who were
responsible for the mismanagement of funds and are discussing retrenching another 100
employees. The employees demand is for a 200% wage increase, and the inflation rate is
accepted by all parties to be at 4.5%.The employees wages are all higher than most employees
employed in comparable institutions. One day, the employees wait until the parents of the
children have dropped their children off at the school, and left. Then they announce that they are
striking (they leave the children unattended) stating that they will not return to work unless they
are given at least a 100% wage increase and did not allow (nearly 45) the employers from the
working premises so that employers confined to within the walls of the school around 15-18
hours . On the very next day the school management offered to pay wages for one month in lieu
of notice of closure. The Pen School employees phone you in a panic — wanting to know what
they should do to deal with the conduct of the Management. Provide him with detailed advice.

Explain the above situation with reference to the necessary legal provisions and landmark
judgments.

Q.7. Explain the legality of the writ petition (along with the legal provisions and decided cases)
filed by Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. in the following situation.

The facts of the case were that Sri P. Sharma was a permanent employee of the Bharat Heavy
Electrical Ltd.. Hardwar, (the BHEL for short). The BHEL received an application dated
4.4.1981 from J.P.Sharma in requesting them to grant him leave for 15 days with effect from
29.4.1981 to 13.5.1981 for an urgent personal work. He had mentioned his village address in this
application. The BHEL sent a letter on 9.5.1981 on that address denying his request, due to
exigency of work, and asked him to report for duty. This letter was not served upon the
contesting respondent. It came back undelivered with report that the contesting respondent was
not at that address. The BHEL again sent a letter dated 10.6.1981 to the contesting respondent
informing him that :

* he has not reported for duty ;

* he has absented himself without sanctioned leave from 29.4.1981 ;

* he was, therefore, deemed to have left the employment--terminating his service contract ; and *
his name was struck off from the rolls of the company with effect from 29.4.1981 under
provisions of clause 8 (1) of the certified standing orders.

In fact, he was absent from duty as he was arrested on 29.4.1981--he was in Jail. He was
released on 15.7.1981. According to him, he thereafter contacted the BHEL (Manager), but was
not permitted to enter inside the factory on the ground that his name had already been struck off.
The BHEL denies this. According to the BHEL, he never approached them but raised the
industrial dispute directly : whether termination of his services on 10.6.1981 was valid or not.
The Labour Court by his award dated 31.10.1983 has held that:

* The termination of the service of the contesting respondent under the standing order could not
be automatic.

* The termination was illegal, as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated.

* The termination was a retrenchment. It was illegal as no retrenchment compensation was

given.
* There were valid reasons for the contesting respondent to be absent without leave.
The Labour Court reinstated the contesting respondent with full back wages ' and
continuity of service.
Following points arise for determination in this case.
(I) Was striking off the name of the contesting respondent a retrenchment? Was it invalid as no
retrenchment compensation was paid?
(II) Is the Standing Order No. 8( The proviso to the Standing Order No. 8 provides that the
employee may be treated in service. If he satisfies the BHEL (Manager) that he had valid reasons
for his absence) legal? Does it comply with the principles of natural justice? Does it provide a
fair procedure? Could the name of the contesting respondent be struck off without any notice to
him.

(III) Standing order No. 20 (e) provides that absence of leave for more than eight consecutive
days to be misconduct. Should the BHEL have taken action under standing order No. 20 (e)
instead of standing order No. 8?

(IV) Should the employee have approached the BHEL (Manager) after his absence? Could he
raise the industrial dispute without satisfying the BHEL (Manager)?

(V) The labour court has held that there are valid reasons for the absence of the contesting
respondent? Does it make any difference? Is the BHEL entitled to any relief?
Q.8.This is a writ petition filed by the Trade Union. The facts’ of the case were that the Kinetic
Energy company was accorded recognition of ‘Kinetic Trade Union’ in a settlement. Later,
employer did not implement the settlement and thereby kinetic union agitated for implementation
of their settlement. The employer issued show cause notice as to why the recognition granted
should not be withdrawn on the ground, that the members of the union staged a
Dharna(agitation) and used a disrespectful words against the officers of the company. The union
its reply denied all the allegations and stated that they have neither indulged in any unfair labour
practice nor have trespassed into the office of the company. The company withdraws the
recognition on the ground that they have violated the conditions of the code of discipline.

Answer all the questions along with the necessary legal provisions and decided cases.

Find out the validity of the writ petition;

What is unfair labour practice?

Q.9. It is a writ petition challenging the regulations of the Electricity Board.

The facts of the cases were that, the two workmen were originally employed in Ramnath & Co.
who were licensees for the distribution of the electricity. The certified standing orders of the
company did not prescribe any age of superannuation of its employees. This undertaking was
later on, purchased by the Telangana Government in the year 2015 with effect from 1-1-2016
and thereafter its employees became the employees of Telangana State Electricity Board. The
Board, to which the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies, neither made
nor got certified any standing orders but considered the certified standing orders of the
establishment of Ramnath &Co. applicable to the employees even after purchasing of the
undertaking by the board. On May 15th , 2016 the Governor of Telangana by a Gazette
notification issued under section 13-B of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
prescribed the age of retirement of the employees of the Board. The two workmen were retired
by the Board in pursuance of this notification with effect from July 2nd 2016 .
Frame the issues and identify the validity of the writ petition;

Is there any remedy to the workmen/

How far the notification binds upon the workmen?

Explain it with reference to the legal provisions and landmark cases decided by the Apex Court.

Q.10. Anmol Oil Corporation was established in the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2000.
The employees of Anmol Oil Corporation are the members of the Anmol Trade Union which is
registered. On 26th February, 2017 Trade Union leader along his members obstructed the work
progress in the factory for 6 hours protesting against deputation of workmen in another section.
Soon after, the management take necessary action and suspended them on the basis of unfair
labour practice. Then the matte refers to the labour court. The trade union leader contention was
they are entitled to protest and employer cannot take any action against them and they have such
immunity being a registered trade union leader and its members. Being an adjudicating officer,
decide the matter along with necessary legal provisions and decided cases.

--------------------------------------------