Writ Plea Alleging Violation Of Rights Conferred Under Industrial Settlement Maintainable U/Art 226 Only If Traceable To Common Law: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that a writ petition in cases where an employee is effectively seeking the enforcement of rights conferred under an industrial settlement is not maintainable before a High Court if the rights in question can only be traced to the settlement and not to any common or civil law. 

A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P ruled that in labour matters, the origin of the right alleged to be infringed decides if a High Court should exercise its discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a petition filed by an employee alleging infringement of his rights by the employer.

"If that right is one that accrues to the employee under the civil law or common law, then it might be open to the High Court to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding that there is an alternate remedy available to the employee concerned. If, however, the right alleged to be infringed is one that is created by the labour statute concerned, and the said statute also provides for a forum for its enforcement, then the rule of exclusivity mandates that the employee should be relegated to the forum prescribed by the legislature in its wisdom. To entertain a writ petition in such cases would tantamount to ignoring the statutory scheme."

The Court then proceeded to hold that in cases where there is an overlap or intersection of these rights, it might be possible for the High Court to intervene, subject to the finding that circumstances exist for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction

The petitions were preferred by some employees and recognised trade unions of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL), Kochi Refinery, aggrieved by an Office Memorandum that took away the benefit of a Post Retirement Medical Benefit Scheme (PRMBS) granted generally to its employees, from those employees who had less than 15 years of service as on 01.06.2021.

Their contention was that since the right to the benefits of the scheme was recognised in the Long Term Settlement (LTS) entered into between the management and the employees, the impugned Memorandum had the effect of depriving a category of employees of the benefit recognised by an industrial settlement. This according to them was plainly illegal. 

The management raised a preliminary contention regarding the maintainability of a writ petition that sought the implementation of the terms of an industrial settlement. The Single Judge who initially considered the petitions held that the petitions were indeed maintainable. This interim order was challenged by the management before a Division Bench, but was dismissed and the matters were relegated to the single judge.  

Accordingly, the Single Judge allowed the petitions holding them to be maintainable and quashing the impugned Office Memorandum to the extent it denied the benefit of clause 42 of the Memorandum of Settlement to the employees who had not completed 15 years. This judgment was contested by the BPCL. 

The question before the Bench was if a writ petition in cases where an employee is effectively seeking the enforcement of rights conferred under an industrial settlement is maintainable. 

Senior Advocate J. Cama instructed by Advocate Benny P. Thomas appeared for the appellants and Advocates Elvin Peter P, C.S. Ajith Prakash and P. Ramakrishnan appeared for the respondents in the matter. 

The Court initially analysed the scope of its jurisdiction in relation to an industrial dispute.

It was found that in Premier Automobiles Ltd v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & Ors. [(1976) 1 SCC 496], the Apex Court had established that in the context of a right created under an Industrial settlement, the right in favour of the members of the Union arose only under Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act and not under the general law of contract.

Hence, the remedy provided under the Act was the exclusive remedy. This position of law appeared to have been consistently followed in other judicial decisions as well. 

The Court clarified that it could intervene in cases where the rights alleged to be infringed overlap between the common/civil law and labour laws, on the premise that the rule of exclusivity would not apply there, and it would be in the discretion of the employee to choose the forum that, according to him, would provide the most expedient and efficacious remedy.

"If, however, the right can be traced only to the Settlement and not to the common law or the Constitution, the rule of exclusivity mandates that the writ court adopt a hands-off approach and relegate the employee to the remedy of raising an industrial dispute, and approaching the forums under the ID Act that are better equipped to adjudicate such matters." 

In this case, the right alleged to have been infringed was a right to a retirement benefit recognised in the settlement, which does not trace its origin to either the general law of the land or to the Constitution. Therefore, it was held that as per the rule of exclusivity, the forum appropriate to adjudicate upon the issue is the one provided under the ID Act.

The Bench, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the single judge, vacated the findings therein on merits and allowed the appeals by dismissing the writ petitions as not maintainable

Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Anr v. Saju A.R & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 314

Click Here To Read/Download The Order