JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated November 30, 1990, made in I.D. No. 52 of 1987, the management has filed the above writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner owns and operates several tea estates in Tamil Nadu and also in Karnataka including Manjolai Estate. The second respondent-union representing a small faction of workmen employed by the petitioner at their estate at Manjolai had raised a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The Government of Tamil Nadu had by G.O. Ms. No.731 dated April 3, 1987 (Labour Department), referred the issues raised by them for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The second respondent had filed a claim statement contending that the petitioner herein was supplying rain coats to their tractor drivers once in three years and such supply had become a condition of service and that skilled workers and staff should be supplied firewood at concessional rates. The second respondent had contended that the women workers should be paid way expenses whenever they go to the village of their husbands on annual leave. The second respondent had also demanded for the provisions of bus facility to school children on the ground that no proper bus services were available and that the petitioner-management was bound to provide the same. The petitioner herein, filed a detailed counter-statement denying the allegation made by the second respondent-union contending, inter alia, that there is no statutory or other obligation on the petitioner to supply rain coats to tractor drivers and that the petitioner herein was providing all the facilities as provided for under the Plantation Labour Act and the Rules. The petitioner had also submitted that there is no obligation cast on them to provide firewood, that too at concessional rates. Likewise, the demand, namely, provision of bus service is also not justified. The petitioner had submitted that it was not possible for them to have different rules for different: women workers for payment of way expenses and that the petitioner was willing to accept either the original home address or that of their husbands, after marriage. It is also stated before the Labour Court that the Plantation Association of Tamil Nadu had entered into a long-term settlement dated April 8, 1987, with the representatives of various unions, which covered the issues raised for adjudication and the said-settlement, signed by the second respondent is a valid one. In spite of all the specific contentions, according to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned award granting relief in favour of the second: respondent-union, against which they filed the present writ petition.
3. In the light of the above factual position, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent-union.
4. The following four demands have been referred for adjudication:
(i) Supply of rain coats to tractor drivers;
(ii) supply of firewood at concessional rates to the skilled workers and staff members;
(iii) payment of way expenses to women workers; and
(iv) provision of bus facility to school going children from upper divisions, to Manjolai School and back.
5. With regard to the fourth issue, namely, provision of bus facility, since the Labour Court has turned down the said request, in the absence of any separate writ petition by the second respondent workmen it is unnecessary to consider the same. Accordingly, I shall consider whether the award passed agreeing the abovementioned three reliefs by the Labour Court, is justified.
6. In support of the issue raised before the Industrial Tribunal, one R. Mani and N. Arumugham, member of the executive committee and President of the union respectively were examined as W. W. 1 and W.W.2. On the side of the management, one C. Sankaranarayanan, Secretary of Planters’ Association of Tamil Nadu in which the petitioner-management is a member, was examined. The management has also marked four documents as exhibits M-1 to M-4. Apart from the other objections learned counsel for the petitioner-management would contend that in view of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on January 8, 1984, in the form of exhibit M-4 which is to be in force from January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1986, the demand of the union cannot be sustained. As stated earlier, the said settlement has been marked as exhibit M-4. After a careful perusal of the settlement, exhibit M-4, and the present demand made by the union, I am of the view that the earlier settlement is not a bar for the union raising new demand which falls outside of the same. No doubt, some of the issues have been discussed or referred in the earlier settlement. However, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, in the light of the factual position available, the second respondent-union is justified in raising those demands in the present industrial dispute.
7. With regard to the first issue, namely, supply of rain coats to tractor drivers once in three years in Manjolai Estate, it is the contention of the management that after providing hood to the tractor, it is unnecessary to provide rain coats to the tractor drivers. As rightly deposed by W.W.1, the waterproof hood is not an adequate provision and it is desirable if they are provided with rain coats. It is not the case of the management that in all the tractors, hood was provided covering the entire tractor as done in other vehicles. In such a situation, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, namely, hood cannot be a substitute for rain coat and accordingly I concur with the reasoning given by the Tribunal on this aspect.
8. Regarding the supply of firewood at concessional rate to all the skilled workers and staff members in the factory, it is not disputed that some of the persons working in the estate were given assistance for purchase of gas stove. In such circumstance, taking note of the hardship to the skilled workers, there is nothing wrong in providing the same at concessional rate to them. Even though learned counsel for the management has contended that without the permission of the Forest Department, it is not open to them to cut and remove the trees, I am of the view that there is no need to cut the live trees and supply the same as firewood to the skilled workers. It is clear that dead and fallen trees which are found in abundance in the areas, can be collected and distributed to the skilled workers not free of cost, but at concessional rates, as claimed by the union. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on the second issue also.
9. Regarding the “way expenses” to the women workers, it is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the management was directed to pay way expenses to every woman worker, once in a year, in connection with her travel to the residential place of any lawful relative of his choice, irrespective of the degree of such relationship. No doubt, if the women workers want to visit their relative’s places of their choice once in a year during holidays, they have to be permitted to visit at the cost of the management the residence of either her father or her mother or her husband. It is not permissible to direct the management to pay way expenses to the women workers to any place. Such blanket permission undoubtedly would lead to unnecessary expenditure for the management. In other words, I am of the view that taking note of the grievance of the women workers, they are justified in demanding way expenses once in a year if they want to go to her parents’ house or husband’s house. Accordingly, the conclusion and the relief granted by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be accepted.
10. In the light of what is stated above, the relief granted by the Tribunal in paragraphs 1 and 2 in favour of the second respondent-Thozhilalar Sangam is confirmed. With regard to way expenses, Clause (iii) of the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:
“(iii) The management is directed to pay way expenses to every woman worker once in a year in connection with her travel to the residential place of her parents’ or husband.”
11. The writ petition is allowed only to the above extent. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. No costs.