M.S. Karnik, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 22/7/2022 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Mumbai (hereafter 'CGIT' for short). The CGIT by the impugned order granted relief to the members of the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions (hereafter 'the employees' for short) at the interim stage, pending final disposal of the reference.

2. The facts of the case in brief are set out hereafter. The service conditions of the employees were governed by a settlement dated 31/5/2013. The respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions submitted a common charter of demand dated 6/3/2019, thereby terminating the previous settlement. The management of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereafter 'BPCL' for short) gave an offer to the unions on 23/11/2020 with regard to the terms of the long term settlement issue. During the course of the conciliation, the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions objected to some of the clauses, namely Clause 1(f), clause providing 95% D.A. and 12% fitness benefit etc. in terms of the offer letter. The conciliation failed. The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report on 30/3/2021.

3. The respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court on 17/7/2021 praying for a direction to the Central Government to make a reference of the industrial dispute to the CGIT. This Court vide its order dated 17/7/2021 directed the Central Government to make a reference of the industrial dispute to the CGIT. Accordingly, a reference was made by the Union of India to the CGIT-1 at Mumbai vide Government order dated 29/7/2021.

4. The CGIT, by the impugned order, as an interim measure and subject to the final adjudication of the dispute as referred by the Government, directed that BPCL shall grant all the benefits to the claimant employees in terms of the company's offer referred to in clause (2) of the reference dated 29/7/2021 received from the appropriate Government for adjudication. The BPCL was further directed to implement the direction given in the impugned order within two months from the date of communication of the order.

5. Assailing the order passed by the CGIT, Shri Cama, learned senior advocate, was at pains to point out that at the interim stage, the CGIT virtually granted final reliefs in favour of the employees, which is impermissible. Shri Cama invited my attention to the memorandum of agreement at page 63 which was the offer made by BPCL to the employees. My attention is invited to the various clauses therein. Shri Cama submitted that the object was that for a period of 10 years, BPCL wanted stability and hence subject to accepting the conditions, the wage rise was offered. Shri Cama submitted that this offer was only for those employees who accepted the conditions and agreed to sign the memorandum of agreement. It is further submitted by learned senior advocate that the agreement revising the basic pay and other benefits in favour of the employees, entails the employees to fulfill corresponding obligations which are stipulated in the memorandum of agreement. Shri Cama submitted that various factors were to be taken into consideration, including the impact of impending privatization and therefore it was necessary to provide for certain obligations which the employees had to accept, should the employees agree to the wage rise offered by the BPCL. Shri Cama further submitted that for improving efficiency, productivity, work practices and safety, various changes were made in the work factor which the employees had to accept as part of the settlement. For example, he submitted that the system of rotating shift working has been provided for all workmen, with uninterrupted working of plant and machinery during all breaks facilitated by workmen taking meal/tea breaks on a staggered basis. Shri Cama then pointed out that the employees of the Marketing Division Union had accepted the memorandum of agreement and therefore, the concerned employees having agreed to offer stability to the working of the BPCL for the next 10 years, that the wage rise was granted in their favour. Shri Cama reiterated that the wage rise offered is subject to the employees assuring the BPCL stability for the next 10 years and upon their accepting the obligations and change of working conditions provided in the memorandum of agreement. It is the submission of learned senior advocate that on one hand the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions want to litigate, and on the other, as an interim measure want the benefits which are offered to the employees of the Marketing Division Union and the other union representing workmen i.e. Bharat Petroleum Workers Union (BPWU), Mumbai Refinery. Shri Cama submits that the employees who were given the wage revision, agreed to sign the settlement which the employees of respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions are refusing, which wage revision they are entitled only subject to their signing the memorandum of agreement. Shri Cama submitted that the employees of the Marketing Division have accepted the offer voluntarily and without any litigation, whereas the present respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions are contesting the reference and hence not entitled to any benefits of wage revision on par with the other employees.

6. Shri Cama submitted that the difference of wages which the BPCL will have to pay to the employees of the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions, should the interim order passed by the CGIT stand, would set back BPCL by Rs. 540 crores for the Financial Year 2022-2023. Shri Cama submitted that BPCL is a public sector undertaking and fastening such a huge liability at the interim stage is unjustified. Shri Cama submitted that it is inequitable to grant to these employees the same benefits of wage revision as is granted to the employees who have accepted the offer of settlement. In all fairness and on instructions, Shri Cama submitted that BPCL is willing to increase the wages during interregnum but not to the same extent as those employees who have accepted the offer. It is also the submission of Shri Cama that these employees are getting substantial salary and therefore, this is not the case where the employees are prejudiced in any manner till final adjudication of the reference.

7. Shri Cama in support of his submissions that the settlement binds only the union signing the settlement, relied upon the decision in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. vs. Their Workmen 1982 (1) LLN SC 28 and Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 1991(1) SCC 4

8. To support the proposition that the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as opposed to Section 18(3), binds only the signatories, Shri Cama relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in K.C.P. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer and others 1996 (2) LLN SC 970.

9. Shri Cama further urged that the settlement has to be judged not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinizing an award in adjudication, for according to him, the settlement cannot be judged on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Court for adjudication. In support of this submission, Shri Cama placed reliance on paragraphs 21 to 24 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Herbertsons Ltd. vs. Their Workmen and ors. 1977 (1) LLN SC 24

10. To support the submission that the Union cannot take benefits of the settlement and at the same time refuse to comply with the corresponding obligations thereto, reliance is placed on the decision in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs. PIX Transmission Ltd. 2005 (2) Mah. LJ Bom 173.

11. On the other hand, Shri Singhvi, learned senior advocate, argued in support of the impugned order. Shri Singhvi submitted that the nature of the work and duties discharged by the employees of the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions are similar to the one discharged by the employees of the Unions who have signed the memorandum of agreement. Shri Singhvi submitted that there cannot be a situation where one set of employees are paid more wages than the other similar situated ones', for, according to him, such a practice is discriminatory. Shri Singhvi further submitted that even if they do not succeed in the reference, still then they would be governed by the wage revision as per memorandum of agreement offered. He submits that even if the CGIT ultimately comes to the conclusion that the offer made by the management is fair and proper, then in that case the employees of the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions would be entitled to the same wages as the employees who have signed the agreement. Shri Singhvi submitted that the very purpose of filing the reference is that the offer made by the management is unfair and the employees are entitled to a wage revision much higher than the one offered by the management. Shri Singhvi, on instructions submitted that in any case, the employees of the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions are willing to comply with all the obligations which are a part of the offer made by the BPCL to the other employees pending the adjudication of the reference. According to him, in this view of the matter, there is hardly any prejudice that would be caused to the BPCL if the interim order that is passed by the CGIT is confirmed.

12. Shri Singhvi in support of his submissions relied upon the decisions of this Court in Grindwell Norton Limited vs. Grindwell Norton Workers Union and others (1987) 54 FLR 727 (Bom). Relying on paragraph 7, it is pointed out that this Court had observed that the employees represented by the respondent no. 2 therein would be entitled to get those amounts in case they accept the settlement, which they may do, in case they fail in the reference which involves demands which are more than granted by the settlement dated 1/9/1980.

13. Shri Singhvi then relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Employees of Engg. India Ltd. vs. Engineering India Ltd. and others 1986 (52) FLR 536 to contend that by way of an interim relief, the employees can be entitled to the claim made for higher wages at the interim stage. Shri Singhvi then relied upon the decision of this Court in C.T.R. Trade Union and others vs. C.T.R. Manufacturing Industries Ltd. & others (1993) III LLJ 951.

CONSIDERATION:-

14. I have gone through the pleadings, the materials on record and the impugned order of the CGIT. For convenience, the relevant portion of the order of the CGIT is reproduced hereunder:-

"Now coming to the objection raised by the management for the same, it is pertinent to note that the interim relief sought by the claimant is neither beyond the scope of the reference nor likely to put the management in to a state of indecisiveness. To put the stand of the parties in a simple way it can be said that the LTS is the offer given by the management and at this juncture the claimants are willing to accept the same as an interim measure, subject to the final outcome in the adjudication. The argument of the learned AR insisting that claimants have to either accept the LTS in it's totality as has been done by other unions and some members of the claimants union or reject the same at this stage seems not acceptable as the same can not be imposed at this stage which would amount to pre judging of the matter.

The learned AR for the management while placing reliance in the case of Herbertsons Ltd. vs. Their workmen & others submitted that the question of adjudication has to be distinguished from a voluntary settlement. Hence the claimants of this proceeding should abstain from accepting the offer at one point and disputing the same at the other. But this argument is not accepted on the ground that for deciding the prayer for interim relief, the merit of the claim of the parties can not be gone into. The only aspect which need to be considered is, if the prayer of interim relief is incidental to the reference and the claim raised pursuant thereto.

On a careful examination of the pleadings of the parties and argument advanced with reference to various judicial pronouncements and in particular the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of Hotel Imperial and Goa MRF Employees Union referred supra, this tribunal is of the view that the prayer of interim relief as made by the claimant union for accepting the LTS offered by the management subject to final adjudication of the dispute is incidental to the claim as per the reference and same can, and should be allowed to the claimants as the interim relief to help them stave off the stiff rise in the cost of living. It would not be out of place to mention that the claimants, at the end of the litigation if would succeed, get more benefits and otherwise remain satisfied with the LTS offered by the management and allowed in this order. Thus, the interim relief granted in this order is no way detrimental to the interest of the management for final adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly it is ordered.

ORDER

The prayer for interim relief filed by the claimant union is allowed. The management of this proceeding, as an interim measure and subject to the final adjudication of the dispute as referred by the Govt. shall grant all the benefits to the claimant employees in terms of the company's offer referred in clause 2 of the reference dt. 29/07/2021 received from the appropriate Govt. for adjudication. The management is further directed to implement the direction given in this order within two months from the date of communication of the order since the purpose of the order is to save the workmen from further misery in not getting their due wage and other benefits which is due since long. It is made clear that the claim of both the parties to be advanced and canvassed during adjudication of the referred dispute is kept open. The parties are directed to take all necessary steps and co operate in expeditious adjudication of the dispute."

15. I have gone through the order passed by the CGIT with the assistance of learned senior advocates. Having heard learned senior advocates and on perusal of the memorandum of agreement and the relevant documents annexed to the writ petition, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CGIT. Undoubtedly, it is a settled general proposition of law that at the interim stage, relief which normally has an effect of granting the final relief should not be granted. However, in exceptional circumstances such a relief can be granted at the interlocutory stage.

16. It is pertinent to note that the offer was made by the BPCL for a wage revision subject to the employees signing the settlement and accepting the obligations spelt out by the BPCL in the memorandum of agreement. Two unions, i.e. the Union of Marketing Division and Bharat Petroleum Workers Union (BPWU), Mumbai Refinery accepted the offer. The respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions felt that the offer is not fair. At their instance the dispute was referred for adjudication to the CGIT under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter 'the said Act' for short).

17. The reference was made for adjudication on the following points:

"(i) If the demands enumerated in the charter of demands raised by the union in relation with LTS of wage and service condition and in particular removal of clauses 1(f) and 100% D.A. merger and 15% fitment benefit and national basic maxima for grade 9 are proper.

(ii) If the offer made by the management in relation to LTS and service condition in the context of DPE guidelines is just, fair and reasonable".

18. So far as the first demand in the reference is concerned, the same would be finally adjudicated by the CGIT at the appropriate stage. The grievance is regarding the second demand. This according to Shri Cama is also a subject matter of final adjudication before the CGIT and not a matter to be considered at the interlocutory stage. Shri Cama vehemently urged that the interim relief claimed by the Union is not incidental to the dispute and in fact the interim relief is the main relief which the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions prayed for. The concern expressed by Shri Cama is that, BPCL has made an offer as BPCL is looking for stability as a long term measure considering the impending prospects of privatization and host of other issues, which is a reasonable expectation. It is his submission that keeping this in mind that the offer was made. According to him, for it is either take it or leave it, but it cannot be that the employees want the benefit of wage revision and at the same time litigate.

19. The question is whether the CGIT is justified in granting the relief at the interlocutory stage. The other question is whether the CGIT should have at all granted the interim relief when the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions have refused to sign the agreement. BPCL is looking at long term measures including privatization and hence the offer, in return it expected stability. Some of the unions accepted the offer of BPCL, and such employees were given the wage rise. There is no dispute that if the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions had accepted the offer, the employees would have received similar wage revision and benefits as the members of the unions who have signed the agreement. The issue for consideration before the CGIT is whether the offer made by BPCL is legal and fair. The respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions want for its employees wage revision and benefits more than what is in offer. In such circumstances, if the CGIT has directed BPCL to grant the benefits of wage revision similar to the one as the employees who have accepted the offer, at the interlocutory stage, can it be said that the view of the CGIT is perverse so as to warrant interference.

20. The offer was made by BPCL subject to employees accepting all the obligations spelt out under the agreement as it was looking at stability for the next 10 years. The major shares of BPCL are owned by the Government of India. BPCL has to be regarded as a model employer. The respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions say that the employees are entitled to something more than that is offered by BPCL. This is a subject matter of adjudication. Logically, even if the reference fails, the employees will have to accept the offer. Shri Cama though has some reservations as to whether the failure of the reference will ipso facto have the effect of entitling the employees the benefits in terms of the offer, for, according to Shri Cama, BPCL can always refuse such an offer considering that these employees preferred to litigate.

21. In my prima facie opinion, to deprive the employees the benefits of wage revision as offered to their counterparts, may be at the interim stage, only because they have preferred to litigate would be harsh and unreasonable. The statute i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has provided a remedy to the employees to redress their grievances. The employees are under an impression that they deserve more than that has been offered. These employees undertake that they are willing to fulfill all the obligations and abide by the working conditions stipulated by the agreement during the pendency of the reference. What comes between the employees and the wage revision to which their counterparts are receiving, is the litigation before the CGIT, which is a remedy provided by the statute i.e. the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

22. To accept the contention of Shri Cama that BPCL will face instability only because of the pending reference before the CGIT is too far fetched. Even this apprehension, assuming there is some substance in it, can be allayed by directing the CGIT to decide the reference in a time bound manner. The argument of Shri Cama that an additional burden of Rs. 540 crore for the Financial Year 2022-2023 will prejudice BPCL, is without any substance, as in any case these employees would have been entitled to the wage revision had they accepted the offer. Shri Singhvi submitted that, in any case even if these employees fail in the reference, they would be bound by the offer of BPCL.

23. At one stage I did find the submission of Shri Cama that during the interregnum pending the reference, the employees could be granted enhanced wage revision but not to the same extent as the wage revision in terms of the agreement. However, considering that what stands between these employees and wage revision as per the offer is the pending litigation, I find it inequitable to accept the suggestion of Shri Cama. Moreover, the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions agreed to furnish an undertaking that they will comply with all the obligations and accept the working conditions stipulated as per the agreement, in which case there is no prejudice whatsoever caused to BPCL. The main question before the CGIT would, therefore be, whether these employees are entitled to some more wage revision and benefits than the one offered by the BPCL.

24. The decisions relied upon by Shri Cama in support of his submissions turn on the facts of those cases and therefore distinguishable. In present case, I am not inclined to hold the view of the CGIT as perverse so as to warrant any interference.

25. The impugned order is sustained, subject to the modification that the respondent nos. 1 to 4-Unions file an undertaking that their members will comply with the obligations and accept the working conditions as per the memorandum of agreement signed by the unions of the Marketing Division. Such undertaking to be filed within four (4) weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

26. The CGIT is requested to dispose of the reference expeditiously on its own merits and preferably within a period of one (1) year from November 15, 2022.

27. Parties are requested to appear before the CGIT on November 15, 2022 and place a copy of this order on record.

28. Parties to co-operate with the CGIT in the expeditious disposal of the reference and will not seek any unnecessary adjournments.

29. It is made clear that the observations made by me are prima facie in nature. The CGIT to decide the reference on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order or those in the impugned order.

30. The writ petition is dismissed.

31. No costs.

32. Shri Cama, learned senior advocate, requested for stay of this order. The request is rejected.