Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, J. D. Orgochem Limited (formerly Jaysynth Dyechem Ltd.), is a company engaged in manufacturing chemicals. The respondent, Dyes and Chemical Workers Union, is the only registered trade union representing the employees of the petitioner's factory. The parties had a settlement dated 30th September 1994 under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which regulated service conditions including variable dearness allowance and additional paid-off days. The settlement was for four years. After its expiry, the union gave notice terminating the settlement and sent new demands, but did not pursue them, so the demands fizzled out. On 21st May 1999 and 24th June 1999, the company issued three notices of change under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act proposing substantial reductions in variable dearness allowance, additional paid-off days, and gratuity. The union objected, and the parties went to conciliation under Section 12 of the Act. The Conciliation Officer failed to bring about a settlement and submitted a failure report. The union then filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court held that the company could not implement the notices of change unilaterally without a settlement or award. The company challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 9A requires the employer to wait for the conciliation process to conclude or to seek adjudication before implementing changes. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 9A is to give notice of proposed changes to allow for negotiation and conciliation, and unilateral implementation would defeat the object of the provision.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 9A Notice of Change - Unilateral Implementation - Employer cannot implement notice of change under Section 9A without reaching a settlement with the union or obtaining an award from a competent court - The court held that the employer must wait for the conciliation process to conclude or seek adjudication before implementing changes (Paras 3, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner company had liberty to implement the notice of change issued under Section 9A of Industrial Dispute Act, unilaterally, without reaching a settlement with the respondent Union or without getting an award from a competent court on the subject.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the employer cannot unilaterally implement the notice of change under Section 9A without reaching a settlement with the union or obtaining an award from a competent court.
Law Points
- Section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Notice of change
- Unilateral implementation
- Conciliation
- Settlement
- Award
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.8508 OF 2011
J. D. Orgochem Limited (Formerly known as Jaysynth Dyechem Ltd.)
Dyes and Chemical Workers Union
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Industrial Court restraining employer from unilaterally implementing notice of change under Section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order of the Industrial Court and to be allowed to implement the notices of change unilaterally.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court held that the employer could not implement the notices of change without a settlement or award, and the employer challenged this order.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act had restrained the employer from implementing the notices of change unilaterally.
Issues
Whether the petitioner company had liberty to implement the notice of change issued under Section 9A of Industrial Dispute Act, unilaterally, without reaching a settlement with the respondent Union or without getting an award from a competent court on the subject.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that after the expiry of the settlement, there was no binding obligation to maintain the same conditions, and the notice of change under Section 9A could be implemented unilaterally.
Respondent Union argued that Section 9A only requires notice, but implementation must await conciliation or adjudication, and unilateral implementation would be an unfair labour practice.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires the employer to give notice of proposed changes in service conditions, but the employer cannot implement such changes unilaterally without first attempting conciliation or obtaining an adjudication award. The purpose of Section 9A is to facilitate negotiation and conciliation, and unilateral implementation would defeat the object of the provision.
Judgment Excerpts
The only question that arises in this writ petition is ‘Whether the petitioner company had liberty to implement the notice of change issued under Section 9A of Industrial Dispute Act, unilaterally, without reaching a settlement with the respondent Union or without getting an award from a competent court on the subject?’
The court held that the employer cannot unilaterally implement the notice of change under Section 9A without reaching a settlement or obtaining an award.
Procedural History
The petitioner company issued notices of change under Section 9A on 21st May 1999 and 24th June 1999. The union objected, and conciliation under Section 12 failed. The union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, which restrained the company from implementing the notices unilaterally. The company challenged this order in the High Court by way of Writ Petition No.8508 of 2011, which was dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 9A, Section 12, Section 12(3), Section 18(3)
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:
