JUDGMENT
The petitioners impugn Ext.P4 Government Order, which has approved Ext.P3 Settlement as regards the system of calculation of overtime wages. They assert that when Ext.P3 was entered into, their authorised representative had placed a dissenting note with respect to the calculation of overtime wages, saying that it was counter to Section 60 of the Mines Act, 1952.
2. The petitioners say that, however, in spite of this, and though Ext.P3 Settlement records the dissent very clearly, Government did not consider the same, but approved it in whole, through Ext.P4 order. They, therefore, pray that Clause 28 of Ext.P3 Settlement and Ext.P4 - which granted approval to it, be set aside to the extent impugned and that calculation of overtime wages be directed to be done in terms of the Mines Act.
3. In response to the afore submissions made by Smt.A.Aruna - learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Latha Anand - learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Company, submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable since Ext.P3
4
Settlement had been arrived at with the consent of the petitioners also. She submitted that even though petitioners may have placed a dissenting note, it would have no consequence because the majority view was contrary to it; and further that, since they finally signed the Settlement notwithstanding such dissent, they cannot now maintain this Writ Petition. She explained that, the final legal effect is that Ext.P3 became enforceable in law, particularly under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act ('ID Act' for short); and therefore, that the action of the Government in having approved it through Ext.P4 is without error.
4. The learned Government Pleader - Smt.K.G.Sarojini, adopted the afore submissions of Smt.Latha Anand, saying that it is irrelevant that the authorised official of the petitioners had placed a dissent to Clause 28 of the Settlement, because he had subscribed his signature to it finally; thus indicating that same had been approved by majority. She argued that since the Settlement is a Statutory one under the provisions of the 'ID Act', it cannot be challenged by the petitioners solely because, in their view, Clause 28 runs counter to the Mines Act. She added that, in any event,
5
this contention is untenable because the terms of Settlement are not exclusively based on the Mines Act, but on negotiations and deliberations which happened during the process of its finalisation. She thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
5. I must say that there is great force in the afore submissions of both the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel because, if the petitioners had any reason to be not part of the Settlement, they could have refused to accede to it, particularly in view of the dissent they placed under Clause
28. Even assuming that Clause 28 calculates the overtime allowances not in the manner as stipulated in the Mines Act, as long as all the parties agreed to the same, it became a binding Settlement under the provisions of the 'ID Act'. Obviously, therefore, if the petitioners had any claim against it, they could have brought it to the notice of the Government and sought redressal, but this was not done, even when it finally issued Ext.P4 in terms of the said Settlement. This is more so because, as I have already said above, a mere dissent to one of the Clauses in Ext.P3 Settlement would not deracinate it fully, because the final decision
6
is always as per majority and consensus.
6. That said, however, I am certain that the petitioners must be given an opportunity to approach the Government appropriately for modification of Ext.P4, if it is legally possible, adverting to the fact that the calculation of overtime wages has been stipulated statutorily in the Mines Act in a particular manner. I do not think that such an opportunity should be denied to them, even in view of the observations made supra.
In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition only to the limited extent of leaving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Government with an apposite representation/request with respect to their grievances relating to Ext.P4; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be considered by its competent Authority, after affording them, as also all other interested parties, an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate proceedings, as expeditiously as is possible.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
8
2/03 dated 14.10.2003 Exhibit R2(D) True copy of the report of the meeting under the chairmanship of Hon'ble
Minister for Industries with the
recognized Trade Unions of KMML and
Management representatives of KMML held on 23.11.2021
Exhibit R2(A) True copy of the standing orders for the workmen of KMML
Exhibit R2(E) True copy of the letter No.H3/110/2021 dated 30.11.2021 was issued by the
industries department
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P10 True copy of the relevant pages of the Annual Report 2021-22 of the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited