18 December 2009
A central PSU serves a notice under section 19(2) of ID Act to the recognised union.The Union on receipt of the said notice approached RLC(C) for conciliation. THe RLC started proceedings of conciliation.After 2-3 meetings the union submitted a charter of demand to the management. It is noteworth that the charter of demand submitted is on the same issue on which the conciliation is going on. Kindly advise wether the Union can submit a charter of demand during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings? Please also suggest legal provision and case laws if any. Regards
19 December 2009
Dear Mr. Acharya Kindly submit more details.As I understand that the employer has terminated an earlier settlement vide section 19(2) of the ID Act and the workers are disputing the termination and agitating the matter before conciliation officer. Further you say that Union has submitted a fresh c.o.d. If the Union is not accepting the end of earlier settlement then what is purpose of fresh COD. Is it employer or the union who has served the notice under section 19(2) of ID Act ?
19 December 2009
the deatils of the case are as under:
In an agreement got signed in the year 1988,a provision was regarding leave rules and encashment of earned leave.For the method of computation of one day wage for the purpose of leave encashment, month was treated as 26 days. Subsequently,C&AG had observed that the month should be treated as 30 days.The agreement had no validity period.Hence the employer serve a notice u/s 19(2) of ID Act of its intention to terminate the part of theagreement i.e. leave encashment. notice served on June 2009. Before completion of two month of the notice, Union apprached the RLC and raised an ID in the month of August 2009. RLC called both the parties and started conciliation proceedings. Employer raised objection stating that the right of employer u/s 19(2) cannot construde to be an Industrial Dispute. 2-3 meetings were held where rep. of ubion were also present. Union submitted its reply to the objection of employer on 16.12.2009 .On the same day it submitted a charter of demand to the employer on the same issue i.e.,change in the leave rules in total asking for unreasonable demands like leave encashment by treating month as 20 days, total 160 holiday, leave, sundayetc. Hope this will help to clarify.
19 December 2009
In the given circumstances, the Union is not estopped from raising a demand on the issue. Only bar is that union can not go on strike during the period of conciliation process.
However I don't understand how CAG could object to the terms of a bipartite settlement. The terms of the settlement as to calculation of equivalent of leave in cash is not against any law. I am also of the opinion that where intervening holidays and closed day are counted in the leave, the encashment value need to be divided by 30 but where the same are not counted then it is justified to divide the wages by 26 to arrive at cash value of one day leave. In some establishments the PL is of 30 days in a year and rules say that all the intervening closed day shall be included in 30. In some establishments observing 5 days week the PL may be limited to 21 days and no counting of intervening holidays. Therefore dividing factor, notwithstanding any rules contrary to it, shall be on the basis of number of PL and its availing.