COCHIN REFINERIES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, V. UNION OF INDIA,

WP(C)/5391/2021

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various unions representing the workers of BPCL, Kochi Refinery, against the decision of BPCL to freeze the Dearness Allowance (DA) of its workers based on a government directive. The unions argued that the directive was not applicable to the workmen as they are covered under a specific settlement (Ext.P1) which provides for periodic adjustments of DA. The court examined the applicability of the government directive to the workmen and the terms of the settlement. It concluded that the appropriate remedy for the workers was to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, rather than seeking relief through writ petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720823 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Premier Automobiles Ltd vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors., Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P VIJAYAKUMAR; JAMSHED CAMA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH NAIR; NIKHIL VISWAM
• Keywords: Central Public Sector Enterprises; Dearness Allowance; Freezing of Allowance; Industrial disputes; Workmen; Executives; Non-Unionised Supervisors
• Section: 9A; 18(3); 7A; 12(3); 2(k)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942 WP(C).No.5069 OF 2021(G) PETITIONERS: 1 COCHIN REFINERIES WORKERS ASSOCIATION REG.NO.7-82/91, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, M. G. AJI, VPP 1/427, AMBALAMUGAL, PIN - 682302. 2 SURESH C. OPERATOR B, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KOCHI, REFINERY, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.111F, JWALAGIRI, AMBALAMUGAL- 682302. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH NAIR SHRI.NIKHIL VISWAM RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, NEW DELHI - 110003. 2 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. KOCHI REFINERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMBALAMUGAL, PUTHENCRUZ, PIN - 682302. 3 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER I/C (HR), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, PUTHENCRUZ, PIN - 682302. 4 THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) OFFICE OF THE DY. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SRAM SADAN, OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI. BY ADV. SMT.M.S.KIRAN R2-3 BY ADV.SRI.JAMSHED CAMA (SENIOR) R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 2 R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.JYOTHISH KRISHNA R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.MEENAKSHY S DEV R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K. R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5391/2021(Y) & WP(C).5641/2021(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942 WP(C).No.5391 OF 2021(Y) PETITIONERS: 1 COCHIN REFINERIES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REG. NO. 120/67, AMBALAMUGHAL, KOCHI-682302, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MR. PRAVEENKUMAR P. 2 GIGESH JOSEPH BADGE NO.83773, OPERATOR - A (MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT), BPCL KOCHI REFINERY, POST BAG NO.2, AMBALAMUGHAL-682302, RESIDING AT 16/435, KONNOTH HOUSE, MUPPATHADOM P.O., ALUVA-683110. BY ADVS. SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN SRI.PAUL C THOMAS SHRI.BABU M. SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN SRI.HAARIS MOOSA SMT.DEVYANI SMT.NIKHITA ANN REBELLO SHRI.ADESH JOSHI RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, BLOCK NO.14, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003. 2 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, BPCL-KOCHI REFINERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMBALAMUGHAL, KOCHI-682302. 3 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(HR)I/C, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, BPCL-KOCHI REFINERY, KOCHI-682302. W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 4 BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI R2-3 BY SRI.JAMSHED CAMA (SENIOR) R2-3 ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.SRUTHY J. MAMPILLY R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.JAIKRISHNAN.M.PISHARODI R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K. R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5069/2021(G) & WP(C).5641/2021(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942 WP(C).No.5641 OF 2021(E) PETITIONER: REFINERY EMPLOYEES UNION (KRL) REG.NO. 07.10.2002, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI - 682302, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.K, NAZEEMUDEEN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.14, CGO. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003. 2 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI - 682302, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. 3 THE GENERAL MANAGER(H.R), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI - 682302. BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGSI. R2-3 BY SRI.JAMSHED CAMA, SENIOR. R2-3 BY SRI.BENNY P.THOMAS, SC, BPCL R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 6 R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.SRUTHY J. MAMPILLY R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.JAIKRISHNAN.M.PISHARODI R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K. R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5069/2021(G), WP(C).5391/2021(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 7 JUDGMENT [ WP(C).5069/2021, WP(C).5391/2021 & WP(C).5641/2021 ] Dated this the 16th day of March 2021 All these writ petitions are being disposed of with this common judgment as the facts and the issue involved in all these writ petitions are similar. The following are the prayers in W.P.(C) No.5069 of 2021. “i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P3 and set aside the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, direction or order; or in the alternative. ii) Declare that Exhibit P3 shall be confined to Executives and Non-Unionised Supervisors and cannot be applied to the workers of the 2nd respondent company. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to pay increased/additional DA to the workmen based on periodical adjustment once in three months including that as on 01.01.2021, along with arrears, expeditiously, at any rate within a time frame as fixed by this Honourable court. The following are the prayers in W.P.(C) No.5391 of 2021. “(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 memorandum and set aside or quash the same by issuing appropriate writ order or direction. ii) To declare that Exhibit P3 Office Memorandum is confined only to the Executives and non-unionized W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 8 Supervisors and cannot be applied to the workers of the 2nd respondent company. iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the respondents Nos.2 and 3, to pay the increased Dearness Allowance, to the members of the petitioner Union based on the periodical adjustments once in three months from 01.01.2021, along with its arrears within a time frame fixed by the Hon'ble Court. The following are the prayers in W.P.(C) No.5641 of 2021. “(i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 2 and 3 to disburse Industrial Dearness Allowance for the quarter October-December 2020 payable to the workmen employees of the 2nd respondent establishment forthwith. ii) Hold that Exhibit P1 office memorandum which provides for freezing of Dearness allowance to employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises at current rates is not applicable to workmen category of employees in the 2nd respondent's establishment. iii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to take up and dispose of Exhibit P5 representation forthwith. 2. The writ petitions are filed by the Unions operating in respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and also the members of the said Unions. The subject matter of these writ petitions revolves around the communication issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises of the Government of India freezing Dearness Allowance of employees of the Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSE). For better understanding of the matter, it is apposite to reproduce the W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 9 communication dated 19.11.2020 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Government of India which is at Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.5069 of 2021 which reads thus: “The undersigned is directed to say that in view of the crisis arising out of COVID-19, it has been decided that additional installments of Dearness Allowance payable to Employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSES) drawing pay as per 2017, 2007, 1997, 1992 & 1987 IDA pay revision guidelines, due from 01.10.2020 shall not be paid. The additional installments of Dearness Allowances due from 01.01.2021 & 01.04.2021, shall also not be paid. However, Dearness Allowance at current rates (w.e.f. 01.07.2020) will continue to be paid. 2. As and when the decision to release the future installment of Dearness Allowance due from 01.07.2021 is taken by the Government, the rates of Dearness Allowance as effective from 01.10.2020, 01.01.2021 & 01.04.2021 will be restored prospectively and will be subsumed in the cumulative revised rate effective from 01.07.2021. No arrears for the period from 01.10.2020 till 30.06.2021 shall be paid. 3. The above guidelines shall be applicable in case of Executives and Non-Unionised Supervisors of CPSEs drawing 2017, 2007, 1997, 1992 & 1987 IDA pay scales. The DA rates in case of CPSE employees drawing CDA pay scales has already been frozen vide DPE's OM No.W-02/0038/2017-DPE(WC)-GL-IX/20 dated 28.04.2020 in line with the Department of Expenditure's OM No.1/1/2020-E.II(B) dated 23.04.2020 in this regard. 4. All administrative Ministries/Departments of Government of India are requested to bring the foregoing to the notice of the CPSEs under their administrative control for necessary action at their end. 5. This issues with the approval of the Minister (H1&PE)” W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 10 3. It is apposite to point out that subsequently, the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises of the Government of India issued Office Memorandum on 08.01.2021 (Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.5069 of 2021) clarifying that the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 in respect of freezing of Dearness Allowance of employees of CPSEs is applicable only to the Executives and Non- unionized Supervisors of CPSEs, and other employees including workmen of CPSEs are not covered under these guidelines. The grievance of the petitioners herein is to the effect that despite this clarification by the Ministry, the respondent-BPCL has decided that additional instalment of Dearness Allowance payable to the employees of CPSE should be freezed and the revised Dearness Allowance should not be paid to the workers covered by the settlement entered into under the Industrial Disputes Act. This, according to the petitioners, constitutes violation of long term settlement entered into between the employer and the petitioner- Union. In W.P.(C) No.5069 of 2021, this settlement is placed on record at Ext.P1. This settlement is titled as 'Memorandum of Settlement Arrived at under Sec.12(3) read with Sec.18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947' and is dated 30.05.2013. Clause 12 of the settlement deals with Dearness Allowance and it reads thus: W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 11 “12.DEARNESS ALOWANCE a. The Dearness Allowance applicable to the quarter July-September 2008 based on the AICPI points of 3150 will be merged with the Basic Pay as of 31.07.2008 as given in the fitment methodology. In other words, 100% DA neutralization will be applied for all workmen covered under this MoS w.e.f. 01.08.2008. Thus the DA as on 01.08.2008 will become zero, linked to All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) 2001=100, which is 138.0. b. The periodicity of adjustment will be once in three months i.e., on 1st April, 1st July, 1st October and 1st January every year based on the percentage of increase/ decrease in the quarterly average of AICPI for the quarters December- February, March-May, June-August and September-November respectively over AICPI of 138.0 (Base 2001=100), reckoned upto the first decimal point. c. The quarterly DA payable from 01.08.2008 as per revised DA scheme shall be as given in Annexure-C. d. Any Government of India guidelines on the subject of Dearness Allowance including changes if any, which are not in conflict with the overall pay structure as per this Mos shall be duly implemented. In the event of W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 12 likelihood of any such conflict with the overall pay structure of this MoS, decision shall be taken by the Management after holding due discussions with the Unions. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that though the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 is not applicable to the workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 employed by the BPCL, the Dearness Allowance payable to such workmen came to be freezed by the respondent-employer by following the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 issued by the Government of India in Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the payment of additional Dearness Allowance to which the workmen are entitled as per the provisions of the settlement at Ext.P1 came to be stopped by the respondent-BPCL acting on the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020, though the same is not applicable to the members of the petitioner-Union as they are workmen who are covered by the settlement at Ext.P1 and are not Executives or Non-Unionised Supervisors of the CPSE. 6. My attention is drawn to the common judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.26423 and 27918 of 2020 so also to the W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 13 order in W.P.(C) No.15370 of 2020 by the learned counsel for petitioners. It is argued that the other employers of CPSEs are granting the benefit of revision of Dearness Allowance to their workmen by not following the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 as the same is not applicable to the workmen. My attention is also drawn to the observations made by this Court while deciding the earlier writ petitions in the light of the statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India in those petitions to the effect that the other employees/workmen of CPSEs are not covered by the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020. With this, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that the action on the part of the respondent-BPCL in freezing the Dearness Allowance payable to the workmen by following the directives of the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises in Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 is per se illegal. No notice of change as required by Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was ever issued prior to freezing of Dearness Allowance. It is further argued that the petitioners have no other alternate and efficacious remedy in the matter as there cannot be any adjudication in respect of the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 14 19.11.2020 in any industrial dispute. It is further argued that raising industrial dispute would be a long drawn process. With this, it is argued that the petitioners are entitled for a declaration that the directives given in the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 are not applicable to the workmen who are members of the petitioner-Union and those directives are applicable only to the Executives and Non-unionized Supervisors. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent- BPCL opposed the writ petitions by raising preliminary objection by contending that what is alleged by the petitioners, even if accepted to be correct, amounts to violation of the settlement at Ext.P1 and the petitioners have alternate and most efficacious remedy by raising industrial dispute in the matter. To buttress this contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Premier Automobiles Ltd vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors. reported in AIR 1975 SC 2238. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that for enforcement of right or obligation arising out of settlement at Ext.P1, the remedy is prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Senior Counsel relied on paragraph 50 of the settlement at Ext.P1 and contended that the W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 15 settlement itself prescribed machinery for resolving the disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At this juncture, it is apposite to reproduce clause 50 of the settlement at Ext.P1 which reads thus: “50. IMPLEMENTATION/ INTERPRETATION OF MoS The parties shall abide by this MoS in true spirit. In case there is any dispute regarding implementation of this settlement or interpretation of any of its provisions, the parties shall try to sort out their differences through mutual discussion failing which they shall resort to the machinery prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both parties have agreed to the above terms & conditions and also to submit the implementation report of this settlement to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kochi on or before 30.09.2013, failing which it will be presumed that this memorandum of settlement is implemented to the satisfaction of the parties concerned”. Similarly learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Clause 33 Note (iii) and (viii) of the settlement at Ext.P1. With the aid of these clauses, it is argued that the benefits extended by the Department of Public Sector Enterprises to the officers' cadre are always made applicable to the workmen on the basis of the settlement at Ext.P1. Therefore, the W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 16 workmen are now estopped from contending that the guidelines of the CPSE freezing Dearness Allowance are not applicable to them. The petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate in these premises. 8. I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the materials placed before me. The petitioners are contending that Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 is not covering the workmen employed by the respondent-BPCL. The claim raised by petitioners in these writ petitions is based on Clause 12 of the settlement entered into by the parties under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Clause 12 dealing with Dearness Allowance provides for periodical revision of the Dearness Allowance which is undoubtedly sought to be freezed by the respondent-employer acting on the Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 issued by the Government of India whereby it was decided that additional instalments of Dearness Allowance payable to the employees of the CPSEs shall not be paid. It is further clarified in the Office Memorandum that additional instalments of Dearness Allowance due from 01.01.2021 & 01.04.2021 shall also not be paid. However, Dearness Allowance at current rate will W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 17 continue to be paid. Despite the fact that the Government of India had made these directions applicable to the Executives and Non-unionized Supervisors of CPSEs, counter affidavit filed by the respondent-employer makes it clear that BPCL has adopted those guidelines even for freezing and non- payment of Dearness Allowance to the workmen employed by it. In this backdrop, petitioners are claiming entitlement for revision of Dearness Allowance as per sub clause (b) of Clause 12 of the settlement at Ext.P1. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the action on the part of the BPCL in not revising and releasing the Dearness Allowance amounts to violation of the settlement and this action is contrary to law as notice of change as contemplated by Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not issued by the employer. Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with notice of change. Any employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman specified in the Fourth Schedule is required to give notice of change. Item No.3 in the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act deals with compensatory and other allowances. Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 18 constitution of the Industrial Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is also prescribed by sub section (1) of Section 7A. It has to deal with industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule. Item 2 of the Third Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act deals with 'compensatory and other allowances'. Thus any dispute concerning allowances is to be dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines 'industrial dispute' and it reads thus: “ “industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person”. 9. It is thus clear that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contains entire scheme for dealing with settlement of industrial disputes by the authorities prescribed there under. It is a complete Code in itself. What is sought to be agitated in these writ petitions is action on the part of the respondents in not following the terms of settlement at Ext.P1 by not paying W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 19 Dearness Allowance in terms of Clause 12 of the settlement at Ext.P1. No doubt, the availability of alternate remedy is not a bar for entertaining the writ petitions but exceptions to such rule are well defined and limited. In the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014)1 SCC 603, in paragraph 15, it was held thus: “Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation”. 10. It is thus clear that the High Court can entertain writ petition despite availability of alternate remedy provided it is W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 20 demonstrated that the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The violation of the principles of natural justice can also lead to entertainment of writ petitions by this Court despite availability of alternate remedy. However, in the case in hand, statutory remedy of raising an industrial dispute is prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act, if there is breach of settlement and non payment of benefits as per the terms of settlement entered into between the employer and the employee. Thus, if the Dearness Allowance as per the terms of settlement is not paid by the respondent-employer, then the petitioners have to approach the Industrial Tribunal by resorting to the procedure of raising industrial dispute in the matter. In the light of availability of alternate and most efficacious remedy of raising industrial dispute, these writ petitions, as framed and filed, cannot be validly entertained. The same are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- A.M.BADAR JUDGE smp W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 21 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5069/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 30.05.2013 (EXCLUDING THE ANNEXURES) SIGNED BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIONS OF BPCL-KOCHI REFINERY, UNDER SEC. 12(3) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL). EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ALL-INDIA AVERAGE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX NUMBERS FOR IND. WORKERS PUBLISHED BY THE LABOUR BUREAU, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, AS UPDATED ON 29.01.2021. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID OM NO.W-2- 02/0039/2017-DPE(WC)-GL-XVI/20 DATED 19.11.20 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE OM DATED 08.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2020 IN WP(C) NOS.27918/2020 AND 26423/2020. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 06.01.2021 IN I.A.2/2020 IN WP(C) 27963/2020. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.12.2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN WP NO.15370/2020. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HAL/HR/II(1)/2020/3 DATED 30.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) HINDUSTAN AERONOTICS LIMITED. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 27.01.21 CONCERNING BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 25.01.21 CONCERNING HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED. W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 22 EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID REPRESENTATION / OBJECTION DATED 03.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT COMPANY WITH COPY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. True Copy P.S to Judge smp W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 23 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5391/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 30/05/2013 WITHOUT ITS ANNEXURES, SIGNED BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIONS OF BPCL UNDER SECTION 12(3) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, IN THE PRESENCE OF REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL). EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. W-02/0039/2017-DPE(WC)-GL-(XVI)/20 DATED 19/11/2020, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. W- 02/0045/2020/DPE(WC) DATED 08/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALL INDIA AVERAGE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX PUBLISHED BY THE LABOUR BUREAU HAS UPDATED ON 29/01/2021. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02/02/2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR), BPCL KOCHI REFINERY. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 25/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 17/12/2020 IN WPC NO.26423/2020 AND 27918/2020. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22/12/2020 IN WPC NO. 15370/2020 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. True Copy P.S to Judge smp W.P.(C) No.5069/2021 & conn. cases 24 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5641/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 19.11.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 08.01.2021. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 25.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. True Copy P.S to Judge smp "