1. Dispute over employee classification for wage scales under an industrial agreement and subsequent claim for delayed wages under the Payment of Wages Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 190
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
29th October, 1959.
Balvantrai Chimanlal Trivedi, Manager, Raipur Mafg. Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad, Appellant
Versus
M. N. Nagrashna and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocate (Mr. J. B. Mehta, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Appellant; Mr. N. V. Phadke, Mrs. E Udayaratnam, Dr. Y. S. Parmar and Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 2(a) to 2(f) and 2(h) to 2(n).
Advocates:
B.SEN, E.UDAYARATHNAM, J.B.DADACHAN, J.MEHTA, N.V.PHADKE, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.S.SHUKLA, Y.S.PARMAR
B.SEN, E.UDAYARATHNAM, J.B.DADACHAN, J.MEHTA, N.V.PHADKE, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.S.SHUKLA, Y.S.PARMAR
The Supreme Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 to interfere with a High Court's dismissal of a writ petition if the lower authority's decision is correct on merits and no failure of justice has occurred, even if jurisdictional questions exist.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act - Sections 42(2), 79, 116 and 116A - Payment of Wages Act - Constitution of India - Article 136 - Dispute regarding wage scales for employees in an intermediate position between clerks and operatives - Authority under Payment of Wages Act held jurisdiction to award delayed wages based on a collective agreement - Whether previous decisions by an industrial court and labour court create an estoppel against employees claiming a revised wage scale under a subsequent agreement - Agreement varying a previous award by mutual consent precludes the application of estoppel. (Para 4)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Scope of interference - Special leave petition against High Court order dismissing a writ petition - Court will refuse to interfere with the order of the High Court if the decision of the lower authority has not resulted in any failure of justice, even if there are questions regarding jurisdiction. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
Employees designated as grey-folders in a cotton mill claimed they were entitled to a wage scale provided for employees occupying a position lower than a full-fledged clerk but higher than an operative, as per a collective agreement. Their application was initially dismissed by a labour court and subsequently by private arbitrators. However, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act ruled in their favour, ordering payment of delayed wages. The employer challenged this via a writ petition in the High Court, which was summarily dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The Authority correctly concluded that the employees were entitled to the intermediate grade based on the nature of their duties. There was no estoppel because the collective agreement was deemed to have varied the previous industrial court award by mutual consent.
Issues: Whether the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to entertain the application and whether the employees were estopped from claiming wages under the agreement due to prior adverse decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the court will not interfere with a High Court's dismissal of a writ petition if the underlying decision of the authority is correct on the merits and no failure of justice has occurred, regardless of potential jurisdictional infirmities.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Authority had jurisdiction to interpret an industrial agreement and whether previous judicial decisions created an estoppel against the employees' claim. (Para 3 )
3. The Authority correctly identified the employees' entitlement to an intermediate grade, noting the previous Labour Court's decision was based on a misapprehension of the claim. (Para 4 )
4. Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is not warranted if the lower court's decision has not resulted in any failure of justice. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed; each party to bear its own costs. (Para 5 )
6. When will the Supreme Court refuse to interfere with a lower court's order despite potential jurisdictional errors under Article 136?
The Court may refuse to interfere with an order if it is satisfied that the justice of the case does not require it and the decision has not resulted in any failure of justice. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Does a previous court award create an estoppel against a claim for wages if a subsequent mutual agreement varies that award?
No, a subsequent agreement between parties is deemed to vary a previous decision by mutual consent to the extent of the variation, meaning there is no question of estoppel. (Para 4 )
8. How is a claim for an intermediate wage grade distinguished from a claim for a professional clerk grade?
A claim for an intermediate grade is based on occupying a position lower than a full-fledged clerk but higher than an operative, which is distinct from claiming the status of a clerk. (Para 4 )
Judgement
WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are these: The appellant is a cotton mill in Ahmedabad. Respondents Nos. 2(a) to 2(n) are the fourteen employees of the appellant designated as grey-folders. Under the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938, (since repealed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, No. XI of 1947, which came into force on April 15, 1947), the Registrar had made a notification recognising various occupations in cotton textile mills. Folders were put in group F of this notification while clerks were put in group H . In December 1946, the Textile Labour Association of Ahmedabad gave a notice of change to the Mill-owners Association for standardisation of wages of the various occupations in the cotton textile industry. Thereupon a reference was made by the State Government in June 1947 to the industrial Court, which, by the first part of its award, fixed wages for grey-folders doing cut-looking work at Rs. 42-4-0 per mensem. Later the same Court gave the second part of its award relating to clerks in October 1948. In April 1949, the Textile Labour Association gave a notice terminating the award under S. 116 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the award came to an end in June 1949. Thereafter under S. 42(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, there was a notice of change by the Textile Labour Association for revision of pay scales. In pursuance of this notice there was an agreement between the Ahmedabad Mill-owners Association and the Textile Labour Association on June 22, 1949. This agreement was to apply to all the cotton mills in Ahmedabad. Cl. (4) of this agreement provided pay scales for clerks who were divided into three categories. Then came Cl. (5) with which we are concerned in this appeal. It runs as under :
"A separate scale for those of the employees who occupy the position lower than that of a full-fledged clerk but higher than that of an operative will be provided as under :
40-3-70 / EB-4-90-5-105
"This scale will be applicable in case of ticket boys, ticket checkers, coupon sellers, tally boys, production checkers, thread counters, cloth measurers, department store-men, cut- lookers, and those who have not been included above but who can properly fall under the above category."
Grey-folders, however, not being specifically mentioned in Cl. (5) continued to be paid Rs. 42-4-0 per month as fixed by the first part of the award of the Industrial Court referred to above. Consequently in January 1950, the fourteen respondents who are grey-folders, applied under S. 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act to the labour Court that they were not being paid the grade fixed by cl. (5) of the agreement and this amounted to an unlawful change by the employer and that it should be ordered to withdraw such an illegal change. This application was dismissed by the labour Court in April 1952. It was of opinion that the evidence showed beyond all doubt that the applicants before it were operatives and could not be considered as clerks who were doing routine work of writing, copying or making calculations. There was an obvious error in this view of the labour Court for the grey-folders had not claimed before it that they were clerks, for in that case they would have claimed wages under cl. (4) of the agreement; their case was that they held an intermediate position between clerks and operatives and were thus covered by cl. (5) which provided for such an intermediate grade. However, no further steps were taken by the grey-folders against this order of the labour Court, by way of appeal or otherwise. In the meantime, the grey-folders applied under S. 116A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act for modification of the award of the industrial Court relating to folders. This application was withdrawn on April, 22, 19
