Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd December, 1958.
S.J. IMAM, S.K. DAS AND J.L. KAPUR JJ.
C. A. No. 678 of 1957
M/s. Burn and Co. Limited, Appellants
Versus
Their Workmen and others, Respondents.
The Workmen of M/s. Burn and Co. Ltd. Appellants
Versus
M/s. Burn and Co. Ltd., and others, Respondents.
C. A. No. 674 of 1957.
Civil Appeals Nos. 673 and 674 of 1957.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Suspension of workers - Reinstatement - Revision of salary, basic wage and dearness allowance - Revision of grades and scales of all categories of workmen - Medical facilities and other related arrangements - Revision of leave rules - Acting Leave allowance - Refusal of medical aid and medicines to the suspended workers.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose out of an industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal by the Government of West Bengal. The dispute involved various items, including the suspension of workers, revision of salary, basic wage and dearness allowance, revision of grades and scales of all categories of workmen, medical facilities and other related arrangements, revision of leave rules, acting Leave allowance, and refusal of medical aid and medicines to the suspended workers.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal upheld the suspension of some workers but directed their reinstatement, set aside the suspension of others, revised the salary, basic wage and dearness allowance, revised the grades and scales of all categories of workmen, made changes to the medical facilities and other related arrangements, revised the leave rules, revised the acting Leave allowance, and held that the suspended workers were not entitled to any relief for the withholding of medical aid and medicines by the Company during the period of suspension.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension of workers was justified and whether they were entitled to reinstatement? 2. Whether the revision of salary, basic wage and dearness allowance was justified? 3. Whether the revision of grades and scales of all categories of workmen was justified? 4. Whether the changes to the medical facilities and other related arrangements were justified? 5. Whether the revision of leave rules was justified? 6. Whether the revision of acting Leave allowance was justified? 7. Whether the suspended workers were entitled to any relief for the withholding of medical aid and medicines by the Company during the period of suspension?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal erred in directing the reinstatement of workers whose suspension was upheld, as the order of suspension was within the scope of the reference and the findings did not justify reinstatement. 2. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the revision of salary, basic wage and dearness allowance, except for dearness allowance, was arbitrary and not based on evidence or recognized principles. 3. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the revision of grades and scales of all categories of workmen was arbitrary and not based on any principle or evidence of changed circumstances. 4. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the changes to the medical facilities and other related arrangements was justified, except for the use of the word "must" instead of "may" in one instance. 5. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the revision of leave rules was not justified, as the changes made were not supported by any grounds and acted adversely to the interest of the staff and workers. 6. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the revision of acting Leave allowance was not based on any recognized principle. 7. The Tribunal was correct in holding that the suspended workers were not entitled to any relief for the withholding of medical aid and medicines by the Company during the period of suspension.
Final Decision: 1. The order of the Tribunal directing the reinstatement of workers whose suspension was upheld is set aside. 2. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the revision of salary, basic wage and dearness allowance, except for dearness allowance, is set aside. 3. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the revision of grades and scales of all categories of workmen is set aside. 4. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the changes to the medical facilities and other related arrangements is upheld, except for the use of the word "must" instead of "may" in one instance. 5. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the revision of leave rules is set aside. 6. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the revision of acting Leave allowance is set aside. 7. The award of the Tribunal with respect to the refusal of medical aid and medicines to the suspended workers is upheld.
Judgment
SYED JAFER IMAM, J. : These two appeals have been heard together as their arise out of the same award given by the Fifth Industrial Tribunal of west Bengal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in an industrial dispute which had, been referred to the Tribunal by the Government of West Bengal by its order dated the 5th of April, 1955, as amended by an order of that Government dated the 26th of May, 1955. In Civil Appeal No. 673 of 1957 Burn & Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company, is the appellant whereas in Civil Appeal No. 674 of 1957 the workmen of Burn & Co. Ltd., are the appellants. The order of the Government of West Bengal referring the industrial dispute to the Tribunal contained a schedule of 32 items which were referred for its decision. The appeal preferred by the Company is confined to Items Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 18, 19 and 27 were as the appeal by its workmen covers Items Nos. 1, 2, 4, 12, 14 and 23.
2. It will appear from the award that some time in 1948 Refractory and Ceramic Workers Union, Raniganj, Burdwan, hereinafter referred to as the Union, was formed who represent the workmen in the present dispute. The relation between the Union an the Company had been cordial, but in course of time, trouble arose. Strikes, slow-down in work and bad conduct towards the officers of the Company followed and the situation became very grave by March, 1954.
3. The Major Engineering Tribunal Award was given on the 3rd of July, 1948. On the 17th of August, 1949 an Industrial Tribunal presided over by Mr. P. R. Mukherji gave an award fixing the wage structure in the concern of the Company. This was followed by the Tripartite Agreements of 9-6-1950, 31-7-1950, 28-8-1951, 9, 10-6-195?, 12-7-1952, 22-9-1952. 22-1-1953 and 5-3-1.95:3 whereby several disputes were settled. On 26-3-1954, the workmen gave a strike notice to which the Company replied on the 1st of April, 1954. A dispute concerning the grant of bonus for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953 was referred to the 4th Industrial Tribunal on 5-4-54 which became functus officio on 25-6-56. On the 8th of April, 1954 the strike commenced and on the 30th of April, 1954 the Company announced a lock-out. In the meantime, the Company had notified the workmen on 22nd of April 1954 against further disturbances. Efforts were made to bring about a settlement and the Company wrote to the Government of West Bengal on the 24th of December, 1954 stating the conditions on which their Works would be reopened. On the 27th of December, 1954 the Union wrote to the Government accepting the conditions of the Company for reopening the Works, including the continuation of the suspension of 7 workmen. On the 30th of December, 1954 the Company gave notice that they would reopen the Works after the withdrawal of the strike notice. On the 3rd of January, 1955 the strike notice was withdrawn and the Works reopened on the 4th of January, 1955. On the 5th of April, 1955 the present reference was made to the 5th Industrial Tribunal.
4. We propose to take up for consideration the various items specified in the schedule of the order of reference; hereinafter referred to as the Schedule, in the order in which they were presented to us on behalf of the company during the hearing of these appeals.
5. Items 18 and 19 of the Schedule: Item 18 relates to the suspension for an indefinite period of the following seven workmen an to what relief they are entitled:
1. S. K. Dey,
2. Haradhan Roy,
3. Usha Ranjan Das Gupta,
4. R. C. Ganguly,
5. H. P. Chakravorty,
6. S. N. Roy and
7. Sitaram.
Item 19 concerns the suspension for an indefinite period of the following four workmen and to what relief they are entitled :-
1. Bansdev,
2. Ghutur,
3. Shanker and
4. Sura.
In this appeal we are not concerned with the case of Bansdev and Ghutur. Of the 7 workmen involved in Item 18 the finding of the Tribunal was that H. D. Roy had been systematically absenting himself without permission since December, 1938 long before the strike.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
