Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

1959 (5) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT

1959 (5) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT - 1959 AIR 1217, 1960 SCR (1) 150 - Civil Appeals Nos. 317 & 318 of 1950 - Dated:- 8-5-1959 - WANCHOO, K.N., SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. AND GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B., JJ. N. C. Chatterjee, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghose, for the appellant A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, A. K. Dutt and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant JUDGEMENT WANCHOO J.- These are two appeals by special leave against the same decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India in a dispute between Messrs. Shal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, namely, (1) profit sharing bonus and (2) reinstatement of 250 old workmen. We shall first deal with the question of profit sharing bonus. It appears that the company had a profit sharing bonus scheme in force on the following lines. It provided that after making certain deductions, if the remaining profit was between ₹ 1,50,000 and ₹ 1,99,999, the workmen would be entitled to quarter of a month's average basic pay as bonus, When the remaining profit was between ₹ 2-00 lak .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

days in a year (inclusive of holidays and leave with pay) while those with less attendance were to be paid proportionately with the condition that if the attendance of any workman was less than 100 days he would be entitled to no bonus. The workmen wanted this scheme to be revised and the main revision they desired was that the bonus should begin with a profit of ₹ 25,000 after the usual deductions when it would be one week's wages and should go on increasing till it came to three mon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e company agreed to revise this term and suggested that when profit was- (i)between ₹ 3 lakhs to ₹ 4 lakhs, bonus should be four weeks' wages; (ii) above ₹ 4 lakhs upto ₹ 5 lakhs, bonus should be five weeks' wages. (iii)above ₹ 5 lakhs, it should be six weeks'wages The Industrial Tribunal did not accept fully the contentions of either party in this connection, though it varied the scheme in force in certain particulars. After the variation the scheme was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y; (v) from above bonus at the rate of six ₹ 4-00 lakhs up weeks' average basic toRs. 5-00 lakhs pay ; and (vi) from above bonus at the rate of two ₹ 5-00 lakhs, months' average basic pay. The Industrial Tribunal also accepted 275 days' attendance for earning full bonus and proportionate bonus when the attendance fell below 275 days and the minimum of 100 days' attendance for earning any bonus at all. It also held that bonus for the years 1951 and 1952 should be paid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he bonus for the years 1951 and 1952 should have been awarded at the revised rates. The Appellate Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal in this respect and dismissed the appeals with one modification,, namely, it added that if in any year it was found that the bonus worked out according to the award of the Industrial Tribunal was less than profit bonus, calculated according to the Full Bench formula evolved in the Mill- Owners' Association, Bombay v. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

years 1951 and 1952, according to the scheme in force before the revision by the Industrial Tribunal, and the conditions as to attendance. Learned counsel for the parties, however, agreed before us that the revision made by the Industrial Tribunal was acceptable to both the parties and that the condition laid down by the Appellate Tribunal that where the bonus according to the scheme is less than the bonus worked out according to the Full Bench formula that formula should be applied, should be d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ribunals and appears reasonable and we see no reason to interfere. It was further contended that bonus for the years 1951 and 1952 should have been ordered to be paid according to the revised scheme. This contention was also negatived by the two Tribunals and we see no reason to differ from them. The two appeals therefore with respect to bonus are dismissed subject to the modification given above. We now come to the question relating to the term in the reference as to the reinstatement of 250 ol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. While that adjudication was pending the workmen suddenly pressed certain demands upon the company for immediate solution without awaiting the award of the tribunal, even though the demands so put forward were under adjudication. The company naturally refused to meet the demands when they were under investigation by the tribunal. Consequently, the workmen who had come to work on March 23,1948, started a sit-down strike after they had entered the company's premises. This strike continued fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e from March 23, 1948, would be deemed to have been discharged from that date. Thereafter no work was done till May 15, 1948. On that date the company gave a notice that if sufficient suitable men applied for employment on or before May 19, the works would be opened on a limited scale from May 20. It seems, however, that nothing came out of this notice. Eventually on July 5, the company gave another notice to the effect that the works would reopen on July 6, 1948, and all old employees could app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Thereafter the company refused to reengage the old employees, a few of whom are said to have applied in November and December, 1948, August, 1951, February, 1952 and January, 1953. It appears that in November, 1949, the Assistant Labour Commissioner was moved by one of the trade unions about non- employment of 249 workmen. He wrote to the company in that connection and it replied that the workmen had been discharged for having taken part in an illegal strike and it could not see its way to reemp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Tribunal about whom it was to consider the question of reinstatement. No list of these workmen was filed even before the Industrial Tribunal during the adjudication proceedings: It was only after the arguments on behalf of the company were over on December 14,1953, that a list of names was filed before the Industrial Tribunal. This list consisted of 220 persons only though the reference was with respect to 250. As has been pointed out by the Appellate Tribunal, it was a carelessly prepared l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fixed date and to reinstate whichever striker applied within the time allowed. This award of the Industrial Tribunal has been rightly criticised by the Appellate Tribunal, which has charactrized this reinstatement as " vague and highly objectionable ". The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that " no award could be so loosely or vaguely made ". It further went on to consider whether identity could in any manner be fixed. In this connection it relied on the remarks made by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

could be granted to them. As for the remaining fifteen workmen, it pointed out that they had not withdrawn their provident fund. It, therefore, ordered these fifteen workmen to be reinstated. Finally, it ordered that no compensation could be allowed to the workmen for the period between their discharge and their reinstatement because of the delay on their part in asking for redress. The reason which impelled the Appellate Tribunal to order reinstatement was that the notice of discharge dated Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s to the sit-down strike itself, both the Tribunals were of the view that the strike was the result of pre-concerted action and there was no justification for it when the matter was pending before a tribunal for adjudication. The plea of the workmen that the strike resulted spontaneously because of the insult offered by the manager to a deputation of the workmen on March 23 was disbelieved by both the Tribunals. The main contention on behalf of the company in this connection is that when both th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ending between the company and its workmen, the company could not discharge the workmen without obtaining permission of the tribunal under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and inasmuch as the notice of discharge of April 6, 1948, was given without obtaining the sanction of the tribunal before whom the dispute was then pending, it was a breach of s. 33 and therefore the order of discharge being in breach of law the -workmen were entitled to reinstatement. There is no doubt that strictly spea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e tribunal under s. 33-A. None of them did this. It is true that some kind of letter was written to the Assistant Labour Commissioner in November, 1949, but that was also very late and nothing seems to have happened thereafter for almost another three years, till the first reference was made on October 7, 1952. It is true that there is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an industrial tribunal; even so it is only reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as possible a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f opinion that in this particular case the dispute was not referred for adjudication within a reasonable time as it was sent to the Industrial Tribunal more than four years after even reemployment of most of the old workmen. We have also pointed out that it was open to the workmen themselves even individually to apply under s. 33-A in this case; but neither that was done by the workmen nor was the matter referred for adjudication within a reasonable time. In these circumstances, we are of opinio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on it, and directed the company to give a notice to the strikers to ask for re- employment within a certain time. This the company had already done on July 5, 1948. That notice had gained con- siderable publicity, for the majority of the workmen did appear thereafter for re-employment by July 21. In the circumstances there was no reason for ordering reinstatement of any one on such a vague reference after such an unreasonable length of time. The defect, in the order-of discharge of April 6, due .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an unreasonable length of time and in a vague manner. We are therefore of opinion that the Appellate Tribunal should not have ordered the reinstatement of even the fifteen workmen in the circumstances as their case was exactly the same as the case of the hundred workmen, except in the matter of the withdrawal of the provident fund. After the application for special leave was allowed this Court made an order on September 26, 1955, that seven days' wages every month should be paid by the comp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version