SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 163

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, I.D. DUA, JJ.
Atic Industries Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 742, 809 and 2086 of 1968, D/- 14-3-1972.
Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1968:
Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1968:
Atul Products Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Workmen and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 1968:
Workmen employed by Atic Industries Ltd. Appellants v. Atic Industries Ltd. and other, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (M/s. V. B. Patel, I. N. Shroff and M. N. Shroff, Advocates with him) (In C. A. No. 742 of 1968) and Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Sr. Advocate (M/s. V. B. Patel and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), (In C. A. No. 809 of 1968) for Appellants;
M/s. Madan G. Phadnis, Janardhan Sharma and Miss Indira Jai Singh, Advocates, for Appellants (in C. A. No. 2086 of 1968), and Respondents (In C. A. No. 742 of 1968) and Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 809 of 1968).
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Sr. Advocate (M/s. V. B. Patel, I. N. Shroff and M. N. Shroff Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 2086 of 1968).

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, I.M.SHROFF, INDIRA JAISINGH, JANARDAN SHARMA, M.C.SETALVAD, M.N.SHROFF, MADAM PHADNIS, V.B.PATEL

Headnote:

Workman Demand - Disposed Of Demands - However Tribunal directed Company to pay an allowance of 15 paise per day to every employee who stays at a distance of five miles and above from village said payment was made effective - Here again a direction was given that Company need not pay allowance to its workman who is either on earned leave or any type of leave authorised or otherwise - Company desires in this appeal to have direction given by Tribunal under this demand set aside - Held, In circumstances mentioned above it cannot be stated that award of sum of 15 paise per day is in any manner unreasonable or arbitrary - Payment has also been hedged in by condition that employer has to be satisfied that workman is staying at a place five miles and over from village and that it need not be paid on days when workman is either on earned leave or any type of leave authorised or otherwise - Appeals dismissed.

Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- Civil Appeals Nos. 742 and 2086 of 1968 by special leave, arise out of the decision regarding demand No. 4 under Award Part II, dated November 15, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, in Reference (IT) 65 of 1966. As Atic Industries Ltd., and its workmen could not settle the various demands made by the latter, on the joint application of both, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad, by order dated February 19, 1966 referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, nine demands made by the workmen. The demands cover various matters and have been elaborately set out in the Schedule annexed to the order of reference. It is enough to note that the demands covered revision, of wage scales, dearness allowance shift allowance, vacation travelling allowance, housing facilities etc. Demand No. 4, with which we are concerned was as follows:

"All workmen who make use of the S. T. Bus Service shall be paid Rs. 20/- per month as Bus Allowance and those workmen who come Cycling from places where S. T. Bus Service is not available shall be paid Rs. 15/- per month as Cycle Allowance and also those workmen who come by train shall be paid Rs. 10/- per month as Train Allowance."

The Industrial Tribunal by its Award, Part I, dated September 27, 1967 disposed of demands Nos. 1, 2.3, 6 and 9. By its Award, Part II, dated November 15, 1967, the Tribunal disposed of demand Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. In respect of demand No. 4, the Tribunal directed the Company (Atic Industries Ltd.) to pay an allowance of 15 paise per day to every employee who stays at a distance of five miles or more from village Atul. The Tribunal directed this payment to be made with effect from January 1, 1968. The Tribunal further directed that the allowance need not be paid for days on which the workman is on earned leave or any type of leave authorised or otherwise. Atic Industries Ltd. has filed Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1968 challenging the grant of this allowance to its workmen. The workmen have filed Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 1968 challenging the various matters covered by the Award Parts I and II, regarding wage scales, dearness allowance etc. in so far as the Award was against them. In particular, regarding demand No. 4 they have claimed, in the appeal, that a higher allowance should have been granted by the Tribunal. But this Court by its order dated September 24, 1968 has restricted the Special Leave only to the question of transport allowance. Therefore, the various other points raised by the workmen in their appeal no longer survive. While the Company in its appeal No. 742 of 1968 wants the allowance granted under demand No. 4 to be set aside, the workmen, on the other hand, in their appeal No. 2086 of 1968 require the allowance to be enhanced.

2. Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1968 is by special leave and the appellant therein is Atul Products Ltd. which is also an industry located in Atul village. Here again, on the joint application of the said Company and its workmen, nine demands were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, by order dated June 30, 1966 of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad. The demands related to dearness allowance, shift allowance, housing facilities, vacation travelling allowance etc. Demand No. 6 with which we are concerned in this appeal was as follows:

"Company shall provide free transport facility to all workmen. Till such time free transport is made available every workmen shall be paid an allowance of Rs. 15/- per month."

3. The Industrial Tribunal, by its Award Part I, disposed of demand Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. By its Award Part II, dated October 16, 1967, the Tribunal disposed of demands Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9. The decision of the Tribunal under its Awards Parts I and II in respect of demand Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 is not the subject of consideration before us. In respect of demand No. 6, the Tribunal rejected the demand regarding the Company being made to provide free transport faci


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top