Case name:

Hindustan Zinc Limited & ors V. Union of India & ors1

Facts:
the petitioners company was taken over by the government of India due to its economic
losses whereby later it was restarted introducing the scheme of voluntary retirement to
minimize its expense was introduced which was not agreed by the employees initially later in
conciliation vide collective bargaining majority of the workers have accepted to the said
voluntary retirement however few workers did not agree as by the said settlement the
workman could not claim employment in any other mine as well however they were granted
employment in other establishment and dispute settled however subsequently a complaint
was filed by the workers for which the company replied that all the matters were settled
completely no question of retrenchment dispute the petitioners company approached the court
against the workmen complaint and non compliance with conciliation.
Issues:
 Whether the action of the Management of the Hindustan Zinc Limited in terminating
the services of Shanti Lal Jain with effect from 27.3.2002 and thereafter not re-
instating/reemploying him is legal and justified?
 To what relief, the workman is entitled and from which date?

Reasoning:
Admittedly, voluntary retirement scheme was accepted by 179 workers of Manon Mines on
7.8.2001. After having accepted the said scheme, respondents kept quiet for almost 6½ years
and did not raise any dispute thereafter. The dispute came to be raised on 5.4.2009 when an
application under Section 2(a) read with Section 25H of the Act of 1947 was moved to the
conciliation officer with a prayer that he be taken back in service and the services be counted
as continuous from the date their services were terminated. The only ground in the said claim
application was reinstatement by invoking the provision of Section 25H of the Act of 1947.
No doubt it is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed to raise an industrial dispute
but when the dispute does not exist the reference should be rejected. It is for the workmen to
show that the dispute has been raised within a reasonable time frame, which is wholly lacking
in the present case.
Judgment:

1
W. P. Nos. 8115, 10846, 10847.
Having accepted the voluntary retirement scheme, the respondents ceased to be workmen as
defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus were not persons who would be
competent to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so the petition is
allowed.
Case name:
Messrs. Budge Budge Floor Coverings Ltd. Vs. Second Industrial Tribunal & Ors2.
Facts:
The writ petitioner is a joint venture company promoted by M/s. Birla DLW Limited and
presently the company is known as M/s Budge Budge Floor Coverings Limited instead of
M/s. Birla DLW Limited. There are 128 industrial workers in the said company and the
company engaged in manufacturing eco-friendly linoleum floor, the union submitted a fresh
charter of demand on May 30, 2001 after expiry of the last settlement dated 9th June, 1998.
On May 30, 2001 on receipt of the charter of demand the management refused to accept the
charter of demand to settle the same the Collective Bargaining proceedings were held in
respect of the charter of demands raised by the company, conciliation proceedings which
failed later a notice of suspension of work dated 1st September, 2003 was purportedly issued
alleging that a section of the temporary workmen were disrupting the running of the
department This was followed by the notice of suspension dated 29th October, 2003
suspending the work of the company on the allegation that the workman after getting the
benefits under the settlement dated 9th June, 1998 failed to discharge their obligations under
the settlement and the employees were suspended in 2003 management stopped work
deliberately and filed the writ petition contending that workers are responsible for loss of the
company.
Issues:
 Whether the suspension of work declared by the management of M/s. Birla DLW Ltd.
w.e.f. 29-10-03 is justified?
 Whether the demand of the Unions raised with regard to (I) Basic Wages, (ii) grade
and scale of pay, (iii) VDA, (iv) Permanency, (v) Cheap canteen facility and (vi)
bonus is justified?
Reasoning:
In the current reliance have been placed on several notices from 2001 with regard to some
indiscipline acts of workmen but strangely no disciplinary action has been taken against any
of the workers for any alleged act of misdemeanor or misconduct.
2
W. P. 15274 (W) of 2014
The Annual Report disclosed in the proceeding for the last several years would show that the
performance of the company was good and, in fact, the Company was earning sizable profits.
The annual reports starting from the year 2000 till 2004 shows that the company was
performing reasonably well and the productions have increased.
The directors in the annual report recorded their appreciation for the continued co-operation
and support extended to the company by the employees. Such appreciation continued till 31st
March, 2003 and, thereafter, in the annual report for the year 2003-04 for the first time the
workers’ demand for higher compensation without corresponding improvement in
production/productivity was cited as the reason for suspension of work with effect from 29th
October, 2003.
The appreciation of the employees for the workers for the earlier years coupled with the fact
that the production have increased over the years clearly show that the said suspension order
was issued with malafide object. If the charter of demand is made then the management is
under an obligation to negotiate with the workers and if the negotiation fails it has to be
decided by the industrial adjudicator. The demand for higher wages and other service benefits
is part of the collective bargaining and such demand per se cannot be a ground for suspension
of work.

Judgment:
The submission of the workmen that under the garb of suspension of work there is a virtual
closure appears to be correct. There is no real or genuine cause for suspension of work
inasmuch as the evidence of the company would show that the company has made no effort
or attempt to reopen the unit. The company is not interested to make the unit operational. An
order of suspension can only operate temporarily and not permanently.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award.
Case name:
Hindustan Zinc Limited & ors V. Union of India & ors3
Facts:
the petitioners company was taken over by the government of India due to its economic
losses whereby later it was restarted introducing the scheme of voluntary retirement to
minimize its expense was introduced which was not agreed by the employees initially later in
conciliation vide collective bargaining majority of the workers have accepted to the said
3
W. P. Nos. 8115, 10846, 10847.
voluntary retirement however few workers did not agree as by the said settlement the
workman could not claim employment in any other mine as well however they were granted
employment in other establishment and dispute settled however subsequently a complaint
was filed by the workers for which the company replied that all the matters were settled
completely no question of retrenchment dispute the petitioners company approached the court
against the workmen complaint and non compliance with conciliation.
Issues:
 Whether the action of the Management of the Hindustan Zinc Limited in terminating
the services of Shanti Lal Jain with effect from 27.3.2002 and thereafter not re-
instating/reemploying him is legal and justified?
 To what relief, the workman is entitled and from which date?

Reasoning:
Admittedly, voluntary retirement scheme was accepted by 179 workers of Manon Mines on
7.8.2001. After having accepted the said scheme, respondents kept quiet for almost 6½ years
and did not raise any dispute thereafter. The dispute came to be raised on 5.4.2009 when an
application under Section 2(a) read with Section 25H of the Act of 1947 was moved to the
conciliation officer with a prayer that he be taken back in service and the services be counted
as continuous from the date their services were terminated. The only ground in the said claim
application was reinstatement by invoking the provision of Section 25H of the Act of 1947.
No doubt it is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed to raise an industrial dispute
but when the dispute does not exist the reference should be rejected. It is for the workmen to
show that the dispute has been raised within a reasonable time frame, which is wholly lacking
in the present case.
Judgment:
Having accepted the voluntary retirement scheme, the respondents ceased to be workmen as
defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus were not persons who would be
competent to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so the petition is
allowed.
Case name:
Messrs. Budge Budge Floor Coverings Ltd. Vs. Second Industrial Tribunal & Ors4.
Facts:

4
W. P. 15274 (W) of 2014
The writ petitioner is a joint venture company promoted by M/s. Birla DLW Limited and
presently the company is known as M/s Budge Budge Floor Coverings Limited instead of
M/s. Birla DLW Limited. There are 128 industrial workers in the said company and the
company engaged in manufacturing eco-friendly linoleum floor, the union submitted a fresh
charter of demand on May 30, 2001 after expiry of the last settlement dated 9th June, 1998.
On May 30, 2001 on receipt of the charter of demand the management refused to accept the
charter of demand to settle the same the Collective Bargaining proceedings were held in
respect of the charter of demands raised by the company, conciliation proceedings which
failed later a notice of suspension of work dated 1st September, 2003 was purportedly issued
alleging that a section of the temporary workmen were disrupting the running of the
department This was followed by the notice of suspension dated 29th October, 2003
suspending the work of the company on the allegation that the workman after getting the
benefits under the settlement dated 9th June, 1998 failed to discharge their obligations under
the settlement and the employees were suspended in 2003 management stopped work
deliberately and filed the writ petition contending that workers are responsible for loss of the
company.
Issues:
 Whether the suspension of work declared by the management of M/s. Birla DLW Ltd.
w.e.f. 29-10-03 is justified?
 Whether the demand of the Unions raised with regard to (I) Basic Wages, (ii) grade
and scale of pay, (iii) VDA, (iv) Permanency, (v) Cheap canteen facility and (vi)
bonus is justified?
Reasoning:
In the current reliance have been placed on several notices from 2001 with regard to some
indiscipline acts of workmen but strangely no disciplinary action has been taken against any
of the workers for any alleged act of misdemeanor or misconduct.
The Annual Report disclosed in the proceeding for the last several years would show that the
performance of the company was good and, in fact, the Company was earning sizable profits.
The annual reports starting from the year 2000 till 2004 shows that the company was
performing reasonably well and the productions have increased.
The directors in the annual report recorded their appreciation for the continued co-operation
and support extended to the company by the employees. Such appreciation continued till 31st
March, 2003 and, thereafter, in the annual report for the year 2003-04 for the first time the
workers’ demand for higher compensation without corresponding improvement in
production/productivity was cited as the reason for suspension of work with effect from 29th
October, 2003.
The appreciation of the employees for the workers for the earlier years coupled with the fact
that the production have increased over the years clearly show that the said suspension order
was issued with malafide object. If the charter of demand is made then the management is
under an obligation to negotiate with the workers and if the negotiation fails it has to be
decided by the industrial adjudicator. The demand for higher wages and other service benefits
is part of the collective bargaining and such demand per se cannot be a ground for suspension
of work.

Judgment:
The submission of the workmen that under the garb of suspension of work there is a virtual
closure appears to be correct. There is no real or genuine cause for suspension of work
inasmuch as the evidence of the company would show that the company has made no effort
or attempt to reopen the unit. The company is not interested to make the unit operational. An
order of suspension can only operate temporarily and not permanently.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award.