ORDER
1. Heard both the Counsels.
2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Award in I.D. No. 53/1985, dated October 21, 1985 passed by the 1st Respondent and to declare the Award as null and void and declare that the said Shops' Employees are not eligible to claim Leave Travel Concession under the settlement dated October 29, 1983.
3. Mr. A. Krishnamurthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the National Textiles Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') was formed in the year 1968 under Indian Companies' Act, 1956. The primary function of Corporation is promotion of textiles in the country. When a large number of textile mills in the country became sick, the Central Government nationalised 103 textile mills in the country in the year 1974 by an ordinance which is later replaced by Nationalisation of Sick Textiles Undertakings Act. Each mill so nationalised was earlier an independent company having their own mill, factories, outlets and they continued to have their separate identity in their functioning, different from the Corporation. However, the Corporation was required to assist these sick units and in respect of marketing the products of these sick units. The Corporation commenced the monitoring and assisting through their Marketing Division and established 14 centres in India for the said purpose. There are five such centres in South India and they are otherwise called as the Divisions. The Divisional Office at Hyderabad was controlling Andhra Pradesh; the Divisional Office at Bangalore was controlling Karnataka; the Divisional Office at Coimbatore was controlling the Coimbatore and Kerala and the Divisional Office at Madras and Trichy were controlling Tamil Nadu excluding Coimbatore. But, subsequently these sick mills were nationalised in various States and were grouped together and nine subsidiary companies were formed by the Corporation. However, the Corporation deputed their officers and staff to these subsidiary companies to man the administrative and managerial posts initially and they were also later on absorbed into N.T.C. (A.P.K.K.& M.) Limited. Thus, the administrative staff of these subsidiary companies were the employees of Corporation earlier and they were continued to be governed by the service rules or conditions of service applicable to them as Corporation employees. The workmen of various mills or factories of these subsidiary companies were having their Unions and were negotiating with their disputes and were entering into various settlements, from time to time. These employees are called Award employees. Thus, their conditions of service were duly determined and there is no dispute in respect of them and such mill workers are not concerned in this writ petition.
4. He further submits that the subsidiary company, N.T.C. (A.P.K.K. & M.) Limited was formed on October 23, 1974 as its Headquarters at Bangalore covering the Mills in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra States. The area of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry are covered by N.T.C. (T.N.& P.) Limited having its registered office at Coimbatore. Similarly, for covering other States, several other subsidiary companies were formed. The employees of N.T.C. Limited were having their own leave rules and other service rules. The employees who are working in Showrooms in the Marketing Division, specially created to cater to sick mills, were being provided the various benefits available under the various Shops and Establishments Act of the States in which they are working. The said provisions of respective States' Shops and Establishments Act, had not provided any benefit or obligation to give any Leave Travel Concession (hereinafter referred to as 'L.T.C.') to the employees working in those Show-rooms and therefore, no benefit or facility was extended to the said employees. However, as the Corporation provided L.T.C. facility in their T.A. Rules, 1975 applicable to their regular employees, the administrative staff being the employees on regular terms and conditions were given such facility or benefit. The said T.A. Rules were not made applicable to the said Shops' employees. These employees were taken over by N.T.C. (A.P.K.K. & M.) Limited in the year 1982 and they were not given any L.T.C. provisions.
5. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the employees of N.T.C. (A.P.K.K. & M.) Limited formed into an association/union and commenced to raise demands and were settling the same from time to time under various settlements. The demand of this Union to equate such employees working in their Show-rooms to the administrative staff 4s were being rejected by N.T.C. Limited consistently. As there were no specific rules pertaining to the said employees working in Show-room, N.T.C. (A.P.K.K. & M.) Limited used to pay Travelling Allowance as provided in T.A. Rules applicable to Corporation Employees only as a guideline for that purpose and the said Show-Room employees accepted the same. The Union representing the Show-Room employees of Corporation entered into settlement dated September 12, 1979 in respect of various demands raised by them inter alia in respect of various increments, allowances, regularisation, leave facility and L.T.C. and the said settlements are signed in the course of conciliation proceedings. In the year 1976, a separate Marketing Division was formed by the Corporation, New Delhi to assist the said sick mills in sale of their products through retail outlets and accordingly, Divisional Offices were formed covering the country and a large number of Show-Rooms were established throughout thee country in each State. The employees working in the said Show-Rooms were treated as independent units and the T.A. Rules applicable to the regular employees of Corporation were not made applicable to the said employees working in the Show-room. However, as far as Travelling Allowance and Transfer grant are concerned, they were being paid on par with the employees of Corporation. The said employees working in such Show-Rooms were also aware that their nature of work is different from that of regular employees of the Corporation and accepted that the Show-rooms shall constitute separate independent unit for the purpose of their conditions of service for all purposes and the Corporation T.A. Rules were not applicable to them and their conditions of service were only governed as per the provisions of Shops and Establishments Act of the respective State in which they were working. The said Show-rooms employees formed into an Union as Corporation Show-room Employees' Union. The said union raised various demands inter alia in respect of allowances, regularisation, leave facility and L.T.C. etc. After due negotiations, a settlement dated September 12, 1979 was entered between N.T.C. and the said N.T.C. Show-room Employees' Union and was duly arrived at Clause 2.1, wherein it was made clear by the management that there will be no parity with other employees of Corporation who are in regular pay scales on the Government of India pattern and it was also made clear that the demand for extending of similar benefits or facilities as given to the Corporation employees in a regular pay scale is also not applicable. Further under Clause 2.3, the demand for L.T.C. facility was also not accepted. This was duly accepted by the Union and these Show-room Employees were never paid L.T.C. and the T.A. Rules of L.T.C. were not made applicable to the said Show-room Employees. Subsequently, long after formation of the said subsidiaries and A.P.K.K. & M. Limited, the said Show-rooms and Employees had come under the control of A.P.K.K. & M. Limited in December, 1982 in respect of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra. Thus, at the time of the transfer of taking over of the said Show-rooms in territory of A.P.K.K. & M., the is Corporation T.A. Rules were not made applicable to the said Show-room Employees. The demand of the union cannot be permitted to be raised in as much as the said Corporation Rules were never made applicable to them and the settlement dated September 12, 1979 duly rejected the said demands. The claim for L.T.C. is made by misreading the said Clause No. 16 and the Union of trying to take undue advantage of the situation.
6. The State Government however referred vide G.O.Rt. No. 1778, dated September 6, 1995 6th issue for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. The 6th issue that was referred is whether the demand of the Union for L.T.C. facility as per agreement is justified. The Industrial Tribunal registered the said reference as I.D. No. 53/1985 and by Award dated September 11, 1986 rejected most of the demands but held in respect of L.T.C. that applying L.T.C., T.A. Rules. L.T.C. can also uniformly apply while making it clear that L.T.C. will not he applicable to Mill Workmen. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Corporation filed W.P. No. 18186/1986 and this Court by an order dated March 17, 1987 remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the said L.T.C. issue, as the Tribunal has not considered the material on record particularly Ex. M-10, letter issued by the Commissioner of Labour, Bangalore, dated October 14, 1985 in which he admitted that the Union can raise the dispute in the matter.
7. It is submitted that the letter, Ex. M-10 clearly demonstrates that the settlement dated October 29, 1983 i.e. Ex. W. 1 does not provide for payment of L.T.C. to the Show-room Employees. However, the Industrial Tribunal without applying its mind by Award dated October 21, 1988 held that the demand of Union for L.T.C. facility as per the agreement is justified and from the date of agreement dated October 21, 1983 they are entitled to that facility. This Award is directed to be published and the Award was published on January 5, 1989.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Corporation.
9. In the present writ petition, the earlier Award in I.D. No. 53/1985 dated September 11, 1986 passed by the 1st Respondent was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 18186/1986 and the same was remanded back to the I Respondent for fresh consideration by the Judgment of this Court dated March 17, 1987.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Award dated October 21, 1988 also suffers from the same error, for which the earlier Award dated September 11, 1986 of the Tribunal with regard to the issue of L.T.C., which was remanded back by this Court in W.P. No. 18186 of 1986 dated March 17, 1987 and the impugned Award discloses that the said exhibits and the evidence on record have not been considered at all, and, therefore, the Award as per the remand order, is liable to be set aside, as it is beyond the scope of the remand order. The Tribunal has not considered that there are separate T.A. Rules for Show-room Employees, T.A. and Allowance Rules for Workers and Mill Staff, 1986 and there are separate N.T.C., T.A. Rules, 1975.
11. He also submits that there was Ex. M16 Conciliation statement dated September 12, 1979 between the N.T.C. (Marketing Division) and the Show-room Employees under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The staff of N.T.C. Corporation who were governed by the T.A. Rules of the N.T.C. and who were deputed as staff with A.P.K.K. & M. Limited, were continuing to enjoy the L.T.C. facilities. The Show-room employees were governed by the Shops and Establishments Act; as such, no concession of L.T.C. was given to the employees; but only travelling allowance was given on par with the other employees of N.T.C. When the Show-room Employees Union demanded to have parity with the managerial and administrative staff, the same was denied and a settlement was entered into on September 12, 1979 confirming that there will be no parity with the Corporation Employees and the demand for L.T.C. was not acceptable.
12. Later, Charter of demands Ex. M-13 were made on February 18, 1983 which in cludes item - 8 T.A. Bills and item - 11 L.T.C.; as such, a settlement dated October 29, 1983 which is marked as Ex. W. I was reached.
13. According to the memorandum of settlement, Ex. W. 1 the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no settlement with regard to L.T.C. was reached. Item 16 of settlement speaks of only to keep uniformity in T.A. Rules which do not mean and include that Show-room Employees also should have the benefit of L.T.C. facilities. On that, the Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal under G.O.Rt. No. 1778, dated September 6, 1985 vide I.D. No. 53 of 1985. The Labour Court passed an order on September 11, 1986 which was challenged in W.P. No. 18186 of 1986 by the petitioner - Corporation and the matter was disposed of on March 17, 1987.
14. It must be stated that the earlier award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated September 11, 1986, the Petitioner-Corporation has challenged the same in W.P. No. 18186 of 1986 wherein two issues were questioned viz;
1 .Whether the demand of N.T.C. Employees Union for transfer of the General Secretary of the Union from Vijayawada to Hyderabad which is sponsored by the Union is justified If so to what relief, the workman is entitled
2. Whether the demand of the union for L.T.C. facilities as per agreement is justified
In the said writ petition, Mr. Justice Lakshmanarao, (as he then was), rejected the claim of the petitioner to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal regarding issue No. 1 and in so far as the second issue is concerned, it is held thus,
'A perusal of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal shows that the learned Chairman did not refer to Ex. M-3, M-10 and M-11. It is further evident that the learned Chairman has not referred even to the relevant oral evidence adduced on behalf of both the workmen and the Management regarding the scope of settlement relating to the L.T.C. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Therefore, the Award of the Tribunal only to the extent relating to the grant of L.T.C. is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration. In other aspects, the award is held to be valid.'
15. He relies on the Judgment reported in General Secretary, Cochin P. W. S. Association v. Chairman (1982-I-LLJ-173) (Ker) wherein it is held thus :
'Sections 10(1)(4) - Payment of additional amount of 10% of basic pay in the revised Pay scale to certain category of workmen - Whether justified - Protection clause in the settlement - Meaning of.'
'In Paras 7 and 8, the Court has held thus :
'As has already been stated, the idea seems to have been that the concerned workers should be able to carry home with their pay packets, which otherwise they would have got, an additional sum equal to 10% of their basic salary. Basic salary rather the quantum of basic salary is not constant factor. It is likely to be varied from time to time depending upon various facts and circumstances. The actual quantum of the amount by way of 10 % of the basic salary which the concerned workers received must have certainly varied from time to time during the pre-revision period itself. If that be so, is there any justification now for introducing a departure from the practice that was evolved as a result of Resolution Nos. 23 and 25, the operation of which has been extended by Clause (m) of Ext. M. 2 To repeat, the idea was to compensate the extra work at a certain percentage of the basic pay. That being a variable factor, it only stands to reason that the quantum is to vary according to the change of basic pay. I think, we will be reading into Clause (m) what is not there is intended to be there, if the expression 'benefit, monetary or otherwise'. occurring therein is construed to mean 'benefit, monetary or otherwise' quantified as on the day immediately prior to the date of settlement (Ex. M. 2). If such a narrow, and in fact unwarranted, construction is given to that expression, we would be sacrificing the very spirit underlying the settlement; and the result would be that what the employee carries home by way of benefit under Clause (m) alone with his pay packet based on the revised pay scale recommended by the Committee, would not be equal to 10% of his basic salary. Resolutions 23 and 25 seem to have said in unequivocal terms that every time the employee concerned received his salary he would receive 10% of the basic salary received by him as compensation for the extra work done by him. It is the right to continue that benefit has been protected in favour of the employee by Clause (m) of Ext. M. 2.
Even assuming that it is possible to have two views, namely, (i) that what was protected by Clause (m) was only the quantum of Compensation or extra payment that was being received before Ext. M. 2. settlement on the one hand, and (ii) that the whole idea was to enable the workers concerned to carry home along with their pay pockets, for which they are otherwise eligible, an additional sum equal to 10% of the basic pay correctly received on the other, it is only the latter view, that is the view in favour of the worker, that could be given effect to in an industrial dispute.'
Next, he relied on the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court reported in Syed Yakoob v. Radliakrishnan, : [1964]5SCR64 for the proposition as to when a writ of certiorati can be issued. In Para-7, the Court has laid down the criteria and limits of jurisdiction of High Court in issuing writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Para-7, it has been held as under :
'The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact however gave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said findings, the Tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of Certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a Writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.'
Relying on these decisions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that item 11 of Ex. W. 1 has not been correctly interpreted by the Industrial Tribunal, as such, it has come to illegal conclusion that the Show-room employees (workmen) are entitled for L.T.C. facility.
16. After remand, in compliance with the remand order of this Court in W.P. No. 18186/1986 dated March 17, 1987, the Tribunal has passed award dated October 21, 1988 in I.D. No. 53/1985.
17. A perusal of the Award dated October 21, 1988 reflects, that after giving an opportunity to both parties, the Industrial Tribunal in its Awatd has considered Ex. M. 3, Minutes of discussion dated July 17, 1983 Ex. M. 10 dated October 14, 1985 letter from the office of the Commissioner of Labour, Karnataka, Bangalore to the President N.T.C. Show-room Employees Union advising him to raise an Industrial dispute, Ex. M. 11 dated September 4, 1995 a letter from the N.T.C. Show-room Employees Union, Karnataka to the Commissioner of Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour requesting to advise the Management of N.T.C. Bangalore not to continue the violation of terms of settlement but to implement them and the oral evidence on either side i.e. W.Ws. 1 and 2 and M.Ws.1 to 4 and also Ex. W. 1 dated October 29, 1983 memorandum of settlement.
18. It is also significant to note that Ex. W. 2 regarding N.T.C. Travelling Allowance Rules, 1975 includes L.T.C. facilities which is as under :
'10. LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION (L.T.C.)
10. 1 L.T.C., either under Para 10.2 or under 10.3 below, will be admissible to all employees and the members of their families once in a block of two calendar years commencing from 1975-76.
10. 2 An employee will be entitled to claim full reimbursement of actual cost of travel from the Headquarters to 'Home Town' and back for himself and the members of his family as per entitlement to travel under these rules.
10.3 An employee will be entitled to claim full reimbursement of actual cost of travel for himself and the members of his family from the headquarters to any place in India restricted to a distance of 1500 kilometers each way as per entitlement to travel under these rules.'
Clause 16 of the Settlement, dated October 29, 1983 i.e. Ex. W. 1 is to the following effect :
'To keep uniformity in T.A. Rules.'
19. It is common understanding that when the N.T.C., T.A. Rules contain the benefit of L.T.C., to interpret Clause 16 i.e. 'to keep uniformity in T.A. Rules', it means that all the terms and conditions and concessions available to the other N.T.C. employees thereunder, shall be applicable in the case of Show-room Employees also. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary is justified in arriving at the conclusion that the Show-room Employees are entitled to the benefit of L.T.C. facility.
20. It has not been brought before me that to the Tribunal has erroneously refused to admit the admissible evidence or erroneously admitted the inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned proceedings. It must be taken note of the fact, that the inference of fact is drawn by the Tribunal is within its exclusive jurisdiction and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be questioned.
21. In the instant case, the Industrial Tribunal has considered all the material evidence and relevant factors and has come to the conclusion that the Show-room Employees are entitled for L.T.C.
22. In view of the criteria laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, the findings of fact reached by inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or quashed in the writ proceedings. Error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appeared to be, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal in I.D. 53/1985, dated October 21, 1988; as such the writ petition lacks merits.
23. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs