Case on industrial dispute composition

Road Transfer Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’), continues to be constituted within the Road Transfer Corporation Action, 1950. The respondent which is a Trade Union of the appellant-Corporation, filed an Application before the Time Court, Dehradun under Section 11-C in the U. S. Industrial Conflicts Act, 1947 read with Section 13A of the Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Take action, 1946, praying for a statement that the 15 persons who were appointed about contract basis as ‘drivers’ and ‘conductors’ as displayed in the annexed chart, be declared while regular and substantive workmen of the Corporation.

It had been also interceded in the said Application which the concerned workmen be given every one of the benefits and facilities of standard employees. The aforesaid Program was allowed by the Labour Court, Dehradun by the order went out with 19. on the lookout for. 2001. The Labour Court directed which the concerned workmen be given the minimum wages admissible towards the regular employees in the pay out scales of ‘drivers’ and ‘conductors’. The Labour Courtroom also kept that the explained workmen are employees with the Corporation. Not necessarily disputed that the concerned workmen were hired on deal basis.

Prior to Labour Courtroom, the Corporation experienced contended that Rule two of U. P. S i9000. R. Capital t. C Personnel (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 81 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’) clearly says that these regulations shall not connect with employees working on contract basis. The individuals working on deal basis recorded Writ Request No . 41349/1999 Kanchi Lal and others or U. L. S. R. T. C before the Allahabad High Courtroom for give of same benefits as the regular employees of the Firm, but the explained writ request had been terminated. However , the bjection in the Corporation was rejected by Labour Court. It submitted a writ petition afterwards before the High Court that has been dismissed by impugned wisdom. It was contended in the writ petition by appellant the concerned workmen had not been chosen in terms of the process of selection required for appointment of standard employees and hence they cannot always be directed to be provided with minimum pay out scales of standard employees. It absolutely was also contended that the Time Court served beyond the jurisdiction by passing the impugned buy dated.

In our opinion, the Labour Courtroom could not have granted the relief this granted by order dated 19. being unfaithful. 2001, since that could only have been naturally on a regular reference under Section 4-K of the U. G. Industrial Conflicts Act or under Section 10 of the Industrial Differences Act. A perusal of the order from the Labour The courtroom dated 19. 9. 2001 shows that it includes not known any standing up order in the appellant. However, paragraph several of the stated order refers to Rule two of the 81 Regulations which usually clearly supplies that the Polices do not connect with employees engaged on agreement basis. Within our opinion, the Labour Court cannot revise the Regulations while hearing an application beneath Section 11-C of the Commercial Disputes Act.

As already stated above, the range of Section 11-C is restricted to decide something arising out of an software or interpretation of a standing up order and the Labour Court docket cannot rise above the scope of Section 11-C in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Intended for the reasons offered above, the appeals happen to be allowed. The impugned wisdom of the High Court plus the order in the Labour The courtroom dated 19. 9. 2001 are schedule. However , it really is open to the concerned workmen to raise their very own grievances before the concerned expert under Section 4-K in the U. S. Industrial Differences Act or perhaps under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Work, as the situation may be, of course, if the State Government refers these kinds of a dispute to the Time Court or Tribunal, really is endless that the same will be made a decision expeditiously. Simply no costs

1