Back
1973 Supreme(SC) 207
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. GROVER AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Cooper Engineering Ltd., Appellant
Versus
D. S. Aney and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 554 of 1970, D/- 4-5-1973.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 19 (2) and 10, Rule 83 - Unions - Workmen - Pay Dearness allowance - Demands related to various items including wage scales and dearness allowance - Whether third respondent represented, on relevant date, majority of workmen bound by settlements - Whether, at relevant date, third respondent represented majority of workmen bound by these agreements - Whether those settlements have been properly terminated, when reference was made by State Government – Held, None of settlements entered into by appellant with its workmen gives any indication that said settlements were being made in view of statement made by Minister - On other hand, Court have already pointed out that every one of the settlements entered is preceded by a demand made by the union concerned. It is really in the interest of industrial peace that the appellant appears to have entered into those settlements - Mr. Shroff contended that State Government declined to make a reference in case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. specifically on ground that said company had implemented interim recommendations of Wage Board and that it was also prepared to implement its final recommendations - Government states that it is not making a reference regarding dispute between said company and its workmen - Reason for not making reference is also stated to be implementation by company of interim recommendations of Wage Board and its preparedness to implement final recommendations also – Court find, however, from judgment of High Court that this question of, discrimination with special reference to Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. has not been argued by appellant - Inference under such circumstances is that such a contention was not pressed before High Court - Hence Court decline to go into that question - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- - By order, dated January 25, 1969, the State of Maharashtra referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, for adjudication three disputes between the appellant and its workmen. The said disputes were registered by the Tribunal as Reference (I. T.) No. 42 of 1969, The appellant filed in the Bombay High Court Special Civil Application No. 799 of 1969 under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of reference. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 31st July/1st August, 1969, dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the reference made by the State Government was valid. The appellant has filed the above appeal, by special leave, challenging the decision of the High Court.
2. The facts leading up to the filing of the Writ Petition may now be stated. On July 6, 1963, there was a settlement between the appellant and the workmen represented by the Secretaries of two unions - the Chemical Engineering and Metal Workers Union, Poona and the Association of Engineering Workers, Poona. Under clause 1 of this settlement, the appellant, agreed to pay dearness allowance on the basis of 75% neutralisation of the Sholapur Cost of Living Index computed for a month of 26 working days in substitution of the rate of dearness allowance that was then being paid. On July 7, 1964, a charter of demands was submitted by the workmen represented by the General Secretary, Association of Engineering Workers, Poona. The demands related to various items including wage scales and dearness allowance. On April 1, 1965, the appellant and the said Association entered into a settlement. From the said settlement, it is seen that though the company conceded certain demands, it was not agreeable to accede in respect of the wages and dearness allowance, on the ground that the Poona Working Class Consumer Price Index was likely to be introduced at an early date, when a change in the wage pattern and dearness allowance in the region will be effected. Another reason given by the appellant was that the demands, as made by the union, involved heavy financial liability. The Association agreed that all demands made by it on July 7, 1964, in respect of which no settlement has been reached, will be treated as withdrawn for the time being. Liberty was reserved to the Association to raise those demands again after the Poona Working Class Consumer Price Index was declared. With this reservation, came the demand for wage scales, adjustment and dearness allowance.
3. On January 23, 1965, the Association, the 2nd respondent, was recognised by the appellant under the code of discipline. In June 1965, the Poona Working Class Consumer Price Index was declared. The second respondent again raised a demand on August 3, 1965, Demand No. 2 related to dearness allowance. The demand was that the then existing Sholapur Working Class Consumer Cost of Living Index Number should be replaced by the Poona Working Class Consumer Cost of Living Index Number and the linking of old and new series, its multiplier and its rate should be jointly decided between the management and the Association. The Association further required that after such a decision, the workmen should be given 100% neutralisation of the Poona Index.
4. It should be stated at this stage that on December 12, 1964, the Central Government had set up the Central wage Board for engineering industries. After the Wage Board was set up, the labour agitated for grant of interim relief. Accordingly the Wage Board recommended to the Government a scheme of interim relief. The Central Government also accepted, by its resolution dated July 22, 1966, the majority recommendations of the Wage Board regarding the grant of interim relief with effect from April 1, 1966. The Central Government further requested all the employers in the engineering industries to implement the recommendations of the Wage Board regarding the interim relief with effect from April 1, 1966.
5. When the Government s acceptance of the rec
