1. Industrial dispute between management and workmen regarding service conditions referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act and Delhi Shops and Establishments Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Management of M/s. May and Baker (India) Ltd. (In C. A. No. 319 of 60) and Respondent (In C. A. No. 320 of 60). Appellants
Versus
Their Workmen (In C. A. No. 319 of 60) and Appellants (In C. A No. 320 of 60), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 319 and 320 of 1960, dated 13-l-1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajender Narain and Co., with him), for Appellants (In C. A. No. 3l9 of 60), and Respondents (In C. A. No. 320 of 60); M/s A. N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, Advocates, for Respondents (In C. A. No. 319 of 60) and Appellants (In C. A. No. 320 of 60).
Advocates:
A.N.SINHA, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, P.K.MUKHERJI, P.L.VOHRA, S.N.ANDLEY
A.N.SINHA, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, P.K.MUKHERJI, P.L.VOHRA, S.N.ANDLEY
The court held that "workman" status under the Industrial Disputes Act is determined by the nature of duties (manual/clerical) rather than designation. It also affirmed that tribunal awards must comply with statutory leave limits and cannot exceed the scope of the reference.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 - Section 22(1)(b)(i) - Privilege leave - Accumulation of privilege leave is subject to the maximum period of thirty days as provided by law - A tribunal cannot allow accumulation of leave beyond this statutory limit. (Para 3)
(B) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 2(s) - Definition of "workman" - Determination of whether an employee is a "workman" depends on the nature of duties performed rather than the designation - If the primary duties are not manual or clerical, and such work is only incidental to the main duties, the person does not fall within the definition of "workman" - In such cases, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order reinstatement. (Para 9)
(C) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25-F - Retrenchment compensation - Where services are terminated with payment in lieu of notice before the commencement of Section 25-F, the statutory provision does not apply; however, compensation may still be granted based on prevalent industrial practice. (Para 10)
(D) Management Functions - Fixation of working hours is peculiarly a management function - There is no justification for a tribunal to interfere with working hours fixed by the management if they are within the limits prescribed by the applicable shops and establishments legislation. (Para 5) (E) Jurisdiction of Tribunal - A tribunal cannot pass directions on matters not referred to it, such as bonus for periods subsequent to the period specifically in dispute. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
A dispute between a company and its workmen regarding various service conditions, including medical facilities, leave accumulation, working hours, dearness allowance, and the reinstatement of a discharged employee, was referred to an industrial tribunal. Both the company and the workmen challenged the resulting award in appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court modified the award to limit leave accumulation to thirty days in accordance with the law and set aside the tribunal's reduction of working hours. It found that an employee whose primary duty was canvassing was not a "workman" and thus not entitled to reinstatement. It upheld retrenchment compensation based on standard practice but denied gratuity as the employee did not meet the minimum service requirement of the company's scheme. It also struck down directions regarding future bonus calculations due to lack of jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the tribunal could allow leave accumulation beyond statutory limits; whether the fixation of working hours is a management function; whether an employee engaged in canvassing qualifies as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act; and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to rule on bonus for periods not referred to it.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory limits on leave accumulation must be strictly followed. The status of a "workman" is determined by the actual nature of duties (manual or clerical) rather than designation; if duties are primarily non-manual and non-clerical, the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply. Tribunals cannot exceed their jurisdiction by ruling on matters not specifically referred to them.
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
labour and industrial law
- industrial disputes act
- service conditions
- delhi shops and establishments act
Table of Contents
2. Management challenged medical facilities, leave accumulation, working hours, and reinstatement orders; workmen contested pay scales, medical ceilings, and bonus calculations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. The court analyzed statutory leave limits, the distinction between primary and incidental duties for workman status, and the effect of salary in lieu of notice. (Para 3 , 5 , 9 , 10 )
4. An employee is a workman only if duties are primarily manual or clerical; incidental clerical work does not confer workman status under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 9 )
5. Appeals partially allowed; tribunal award modified regarding leave accumulation, working hours, reinstatement of a non-workman, gratuity eligibility, and bonus jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 15 , 18 )
6. How is the status of a workman determined under the Industrial Disputes Act when duties are mixed?
The determination depends on the nature of duties rather than designation. If the main work is not manual or clerical, and such work is only a small fraction incidental to the main duties, the person is not a workman. (Para 9 )
7. Can an Industrial Tribunal allow leave accumulation that exceeds the limits set by the Shops and Establishments Act?
No, the tribunal cannot allow the accumulation of privilege leave beyond the maximum period specifically provided by the applicable law, such as the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act. (Para 3 )
8. Does payment of salary in lieu of notice extend the period of service for statutory retrenchment compensation?
No, when services are terminated with payment of salary in lieu of notice, the service ends on the date of termination, not at the end of the notice period. (Para 10 )
9. Can an Industrial Tribunal pass orders regarding bonus for periods beyond the specific timeframe referred to it?
No, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to pass orders regarding bonus for periods subsequent to the specific period referred for adjudication. (Para 15 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : These two appeals arise from the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, and shall be dealt with together. There was a dispute between the management of Messrs. Slay and Baker (hereinafter called the company) and its workmen with respect to various matters, which was referred for adjudication on January 6, 1956. The tribunal gave its award on October 19, 1957, and it is this award which is being assailed in these two appeals by the company as well as the workmen. It is not necessary to set out the points of dispute in detail. We propose to confine ourselves to the points raised by learned counsel on either side in the respective appeals and shall start with the company s appeal.
2. The first item relates to medical facilities. The main attack of the company is on that part of the award which directs the supply of injections or patent medicines at half cost when the company s doctor certifies that these are essential for the employee in question and this direction its to cover products other than those of the company. It is urged that this will increase the burden on the company enormously. However, the direction is subject to the further overall direction that the cost of medical assistance in any one year shall not exceed one month s salary including allowance of a particular workman. In the circumstances, the contention of the company that it will increase the burden on this head enormously is not justified. We, therefore, reject the contention.
3. The next contention is with respect to leave facilities. The tribunal has directed that accumulation of privilege leave shall be allowed up to the maximum period of twelve weeks. This direction is attacked on the ground that it is against the provisions of S. 22 (1) (b) (i) of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, No. VII of 1954. This contention must succeed, for S. 22 (1) (b) (i) provides that privilege leave admissible may be accumulated upto the maximum period of thirty days. It was, therefore, not open to the tribunal to allow accumulation of leave upto twelve weeks. The award of the tribunal is, therefore, modified and the accumulation of privilege leave is allowed upto thirty days only as provided by law.
4. Further the company attacks the provision as to maternity leave. It is enough to say that although the workmen claimed maternity leave, the company said nothing in its reply about it. In the circumstances we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal with respect to this item.
5. The company next attacks the provision as to working hours. Its main contention is that fixation of working hours is peculiarly a management function and there was no reason for the tribunal to interfere with the hours of work fixed by the company, particularly when they were well within the hours allowed under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act. It appears that the company s working hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with three rest intervals-one hour for lunch, 15 minutes for morning tea, and 15 minutes for afternoon tea. The tribunal changed the hours to 9-30 a.m. to 5 p.m. with one hour s interval for lunch. Theoretically, therefore, there was no reduction in the working hours but practically there was because the tribunal directed that instead of the two intervals of 15 minutes each for tea which was supplied by the company to its workmen, it should see that the tea is supplied to the workmen at their tables. Obviously, therefore, what will happen is that the workmen will take their time for tea because they cannot both work and take tea at the same time; and the tribunal has in effect reduced the working hours by half an hour each day. There is in the circumstances no justification for this reduction. Similarly, the tribunal has reduced the working hours for the subordinate staff for which again we find no justification. In the circumstances the existing working hours which are well within the hours of work prescribed under the Delhi Shop
