Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th November, 1960
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
1. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Ltd. (In C. No. 471 of 60) and 2. G. B. Chitnis and others (In C. A. No. 472 of 60), Appellants
Versus
1. The workmen (In C. A. No. 471 of 60) and 2. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Ltd. and another (In C. A. No. 472 of 60) Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 471 and 472 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General, for India (M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co. with him), for Appellants (In C. A. No. 471 of 1960) & Respondent No. 1 (in C. A. No. 472 of 1960) M/S. C. L. Dudhia and K. L. Hathi, Advocates, for Respondents (In C. A. No. 471 of 1960) and Appellants (in C. A. No. 472 of 1960).
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 10(1) - AGE OF RETIREMENT - FIXATION OF - REVISION OF - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS - UNIFORMITY IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - PENSION SCHEME - TREND IN THE AREA - COMPARABILITY OF CONCERNS.
Fact of the Case:
The Imperial Chemical Industrial (India) Private Limited, Bombay (the company), had fixed the retirement age of its employees at 55. The workmen demanded that the retirement age be raised to 60. The Industrial Tribunal fixed the retirement age at 58.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence supplied by the workmen in their document Ex. B filed along with their claim. This evidence strongly suggested almost a uniform tendency in Bombay to fix the age of retirement at 60 and not 55. The Court also held that the material facts in this case were very similar to the facts in the case of the Dunlop Company, 1960-2 SCR 51, where the Court had fixed the retirement age at 60.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence supplied by the workmen in their document Ex. B filed along with their claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence supplied by the workmen in their document Ex. B filed along with their claim. This evidence strongly suggested almost a uniform tendency in Bombay to fix the age of retirement at 60 and not 55. The Court also held that the material facts in this case were very similar to the facts in the case of the Dunlop Company, 1960-2 SCR 51, where the Court had fixed the retirement age at 60.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the workmen and modified the directions of the award under appeal. The workmen were entitled to their costs from the company.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR , J. : These two cross appeals are directed against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in respect of two of the demands referred to it for adjudication. Five industrial demands were made against the Imperial Chemical Industrial (India) Private Limited, Bombay (hereafter called the company), by its workmen (hereafter called the workmen), and they were referred for industrial adjudication by the Government of Bombay under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947). These demands were considered by the Industrial Tribunal in the light of the evidence adduced before it by the respective parties and decided on the merits. Two of the demands which are the subject matter of the present appeals were demands Nos. 3 and 5. By demand No. 3 the workmen claimed that for the work done on Sundays and holidays observed by the company clerical as well as service staff shall be paid twice the employee s normal rate of pay consisting of basic salary s dearness allowance and other allowances if any. Demand No. 5 made by the workmen was that all employees of the company shall not be compulsorily retired by the company before they attain the age of 60 except in case of voluntary retirement by the employees concerned. The company is an All Indian concern and has its branches at several places in India. At its Bombay office 1,400 employees are engaged by the company; out of these 800 employees are concerned with the present dispute; 600 out of them belong to the clerical cadre whereas the remaining 200 belong to the cadre of the subordinate staff.
2. The two demands set out above were disputed by the company. In regard to demand No. 3 the company, stated that it paid Sunday or holiday work allowance in terms of a earlier award known as the Naik Award, and since no change of circumstances had taken place since the making of the said award a revision in he matter of the said payment was not justified. The company further claimed that the allowance paid by it to its employees was reasonable, fair and adequate. In regard to demand No. 5 the company pleaded that since 1950 the company had fixed the retirement age at 55 for all its employees throughout India, and that any revision made in that behalf so far as the employees in the present dispute are concerned would have serious repercussions in the other branches of the company. It was also urged that the age of retirement fixed by the company was fair and reasonable. The company drew attention to the fact that it pays a generous Provident Fund of 10 per cent contribution from either side which does not exist in many other concerns in Bombay.
3. In regard to demand No. 3 the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of the workmen and has directed the company to give to the employees concerned, for work done on Sundays and holidays, half of a day s total salary and dearness allowance (calculated by dividing the total of the basic wage, special allowance and dearness allowance for the month by 30). In regard to the work done by the employees on festival holidays the Tribunal has purported to order that the allowance in that half should be a day s salary and dearness allowance calculated as above, but employees will not be entitled to a substituted holiday. It is this part of the award that is challenged by the workmen in their appeal.
4. In regard to demand No. 5 the Tribunal has taken the view that a case had been made out by the workmen for the revision of the age of retirement fixed by the company and it has held that it would be reasonable to fix the said age of retirement at 58 instead of 55. This direction is challenged by the company in its appeal as well as by the workmen in their appeal. The company contends that no change should have been made in the age of retirement, whereas the workmen urge that the retirement age should have been fixed at 60 instead of 58. Thus Civil Appeal No. 471 of 1960 filed by the company is concerned only with the fixation of the ag
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
