WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED v. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER

Judgment

1. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER – (HR) – BC. - 2 -

4. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER – (HR) – BC. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER – (HR–LEGAL) – BC. (BY SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03/08/2023 BEARING NO.BC/HR/17/527/2023 ANNEXING NOTICE OF CHANGE UNDER SECTION 9A IN FORM E (PLACED AS ANNEXURE-A); QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.BC/HR/17/965/2023 DATED 27/12/2023 (PLACED AS ANNEXURE-B); DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT (REF. NO.PTN/CR-55/88-89 DATED 14/06/1988) SIGNED ON 19/08/1988 (PLACED AS ANNEXURE-C). THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10/01/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - O R D E R The workmen of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited represented by the Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association-a trade union are before this Court assailing the impugned communication issued by respondent No.3 dated

03.08.2023 annexing notice of change under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ID Act’ for short) in Form ‘E’ at Annexure-A, the communication issued by respondent No.4 dated 27.12.2023 at Annexure-B and further a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-management to ensure the compliance with the memorandum of settlement dated 14.06.1988.

2. Petitioner herein is referred to as a Trade Union and the respondent as the management for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned counsel for the respondents. - 4 - 4 (I) Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following grounds: i. That the workmen of the respondent-management have vested right for computation of leave encashment by considering 26 days in a month as prescribed under the memorandum of settlement entered between the petitioner- union and the respondent-management and in violation of the same, the notice dated 03.08.2023 by the respondent- management under Section 9A of the ID Act, changing the leave encashment by considering 30 days a month instead of 26 days and the communication dated 27.12.2023 stating the changes/amendments at Annexure-A would come into force with effect from 27.12.2023 is highly impermissible and illegal, more so the communication effecting the amendment is in the interregnum period when the reference is awaited. ii. That the methodology to calculate vacation leave encashment is governed by the terms of the settlement at Annexure-C entered into between the management and the - 5 - workman signed on 19.08.1988 under Section 18 (3) read with Section 12 (3) of the ID Act. iii. The notice issued by the management stating the changes would come into force with effect from 27.12.2023 being an unilateral amendment to the settlement is illegal and without authority. iv. The dispute was brought to the notice of the Conciliation Officer, however, the conciliation has failed and the matter was referred to the Government for further action. v. That respondent-management cannot unilaterally alter the terms of subsisting binding settlement and bring it into effect immediately. 4 (II) Learned counsel would address arguments to the preliminary objections raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in the following manner: i. That the impugned notice/communication dated

27.12.2023 has been issued subsequent to the failure of - 6 - conciliation and with the knowledge that there is no Presiding Officer at CGIT to hear the matter when referred. ii. That the impugned orders are entirely without authority/jurisdiction and directly affecting the fundamental rights of the workman and this Court has authority/jurisdiction to look into the said aspect. iii. That an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar particularly, when the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of the fundamental right or where there has been violation of principles of natural justice or where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenge. iv. In the instant petition, it is a pure question of law “as to whether the respondent-management can unilaterally alter the terms of a subsisting binding settlement and that the writ Court has no bar in deciding the matter.” 4 (III) In support of her contention regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, the following decisions are placed: - 7 - i. M/s. Magadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar1 (M/s. Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd.) ii. Union of India (UOI) and Ors vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd.2 (Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd.) 4 (IV) The settlements/awards are binding even the period unless replaced by another settlement/award and the respondent cannot unilaterally amend the same. Learned counsel would further elaborate that the law attaches importance and sanctity to a settlement arrived at the course of conciliation proceedings and equates with an award and the same cannot be unilaterally modified by one of the parties to the same. To substantiate her contention that even after termination of the settlement dated 19.08.1988, the terms of the settlement would continue until a new settlement or award is passed in that regard, takes place and places reliance on the following decisions: 1 2021 SCC Online SC 801 2 (2011) 5 SCC 697 - 8 - i) South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. A.R. Chacko3 (South Indian Bank Ltd.) ii) Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vs. D.J. Bahadur and Ors.4 (Life Insurance Corporation of India) iii) Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. KSRTC Staff & Workers’ Federation and Ors.5 (Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation) iv) Gujarat Agricultural University vs. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union6 (Gujarat Agricultural University) v) M.C. Raju vs. Executive, Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited7 (M.C. Raju) 4 (V) That Section 9A and Section 33 do not alter the position that settlements/awards are binding even after their period unless it is replaced by another settlement/award – ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable in light of the alternative efficacious remedy provided under law under the ID Act. ii. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Authority in accordance with law. - 27 - iii. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the appropriate Authority. SD/- JUDGE MBM