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

1975 Supreme(SC) 233

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., K.K. MATHEW, V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI, JJ
The Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Its Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 377 of 1970,
D/-24-7-1975.
Advocates Appeared
Dr. Anand Prakash, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. D. N. Mishra, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; M/s. D. L.Sen Gupta and S. K. Nandy, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
ANAND PARKASH, D.L.SEN GUPTA, D.N.MUHRA, J.B.DADACHAN, S.K.NANDY

Headnote:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 9A - Appeal filled for grant of compensatory allowance - Concession of compensatory allowance - Appellant is management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. which has undertaken what is known as Assam Oil Refineries situated at Gauhati - Reference to Tribunal was made by Government in the following circumstances: By virtue of a notification Central Government granted compensatory allowance according to certain rates to all Central Government employees posted throughout Assam - Appellant set up the refinery and in view of circular of Central Government referred to above management thought it fit in circumstances to grant compensatory allowance to all its employees - Grant of compensatory allowance was not made through any standing order or circular but it is alleged to have been given as an implied condition of service - Thereafter there was another notification by Central Government by which it was provided that the employees in receipt of the compensatory allowance would be given the option to choose the house rent allowance or compensatory allowance but will not be entitled to draw both - This order was to remain in force for five years - By virtue of another notification Central Government made it further clear that employees of the Central- Government would have to draw either compensatory allowance at the existing rates or the house rent allowance but not both – Held, Courts opinion, on the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that 6 1/2 working hours a day was a term of service, for the simple reason that it was only during a period of the first six months, when the factory was being constructed at the site of the workshop that, due to shortage of accommodation, the administrative office was. as an interim arrangement, temporarily located in tents at a place about 2 k.m. away, that staff in this office was not required to work for more than 6 1/2 hours per day - There is no evidence that 6 1/2 hours per day was a condition of service; neither is there any such term of service in their letters of appointment, nor is such a term of service otherwise discernible from other material on the record - Case, however, cannot be equated with the present case by virtue of the unilateral deprivation of the compensatory allowance which was received by the employees by the withdrawal of which they were undoubtedly prejudiced - It cannot be contended that the sudden withdrawal of a substantial concession in the conditions of service would not materially or adversely affect the workmen. We are therefore, of opinion that the aforesaid case also does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement

FAZL ALI, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave against the award dated October 22, 1969 by Mr. R, Medhi, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gauhati on a reference made to the Tribunal by the Government of Assam by virtue of its notification No. FLR.46/61/194 dated July 14, 1965, in view of an industrial dispute having existed between the parties. The appellant is the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. which has undertaken what is known as the Assam Oil Refineries situated at Gauhati. The reference to the Tribunal was made by the Government in the following circumstances:

By virtue of a notification dated September 3, 1957, the Central Government granted compensatory allowance according to certain rates to all Central Government employees posted throughout Assam. The appellant set up the refinery some time in the year 1959 and in view of the circular of the Central Government referred to above the management thought it fit in the circumstances to grant compensatory allowance to all its employees some time in September 1959. The grant of compensatory allowance was not made through any standing order or circular but it is alleged to have been given as an implied condition of service. Thereafter there was another notification by the Central Government dated December 8, 1960 by which it was provided that the employees in receipt of the compensatory allowance would be given the option to choose the house rent allowance or compensatory allowance but will not be entitled to draw both. This order was to remain in force for five years. By virtue of another notification dated August 9, 1965 the Central Government made it further clear that the employees of the Central- Government would have to draw either compensatory allowance at the existing rates or the house rent allowance but not both. In view, however, of the notification dated December 8, 1960, alluded to above, the management thought that the contents of the circular were binding on the Company and, therefore, they unilaterally, without giving any notice to the workers, withdrew the concession of the compensatory allowance which had been granted to the workers in September 1959. This concession was withdrawn with effect from July 1960. The workers moved the Government for making a reference to the Tribunal because a dispute arose between the parties regarding the competency of the appellant to withdraw the concession granted by it unilaterally. The Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal which has held that there was a dispute between the parties and as Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - has not been complied with by the Company the management was not legally entitled to withdraw the concession of the Assam Compensatory Allowance granted to the employees. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was published by the Government of Assam in the Gazette dated July 14, 1965.

2-3. Dr. Anand Prakash, counsel for the appellant, made the following three contentions before us:

(1) that the compensatory allowance was given purely on the basis of the Central Government circular dated September 3, 1957, on the distinct understanding that it was a temporary measure which could be withdrawn at the will of the employer and did not amount to a condition of service at all;

(2) that even if the provisions of Section 9A of the Act applied, since the management had substituted the house rent allowance for compensatory allowance the workers were not adversely affected and, therefore, it was not necessary to give any notice to them before withdrawing the concession of the compensatory allowance; and

(3) that even if the provisions of Section 9A of the Act were not complied with, the Tribunal should have at least gone into the question on merits instead of basing its award on the question of applicability of Section 9A of the Act.

4. Before, however, dealing with the contentions raised before us, it may be necessary

































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top