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

1979 Supreme(SC) 383

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P.S. KAILASAM AND A.P. SEN, JJ.
(1) The Management of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Appellants
Versus
G. S. Barot and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 146 of 1977, 322-324 of 1979 and Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 2929 of 1979
Decided on 4-9-1979.
WITH
(2) The Management of Shri Mandhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. etc., Appellants
 
Versus
 
The Workmen employed under Shri Mandhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. etc., Respondents.
AND
(3) Bardoli Taluka Khand Kamdar Union etc., Petitioner
 
Versus
 
Shri Mandhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Mandhi, Respondent.
Advocates appeared
 
Dr. Anand Prakash, Sr. Advocate (M/s. Laxmi Anand Prakash and Arun B. Desai and H. K. Puri Advocates with him) (in C.A. Nos. 146 and 1977 and 323 of 1979), Mr. F. S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate (M/s. H. K. Puri, Arun B. Desai and Mrs. Laxmi Anand, Advocates with him) (in C.A. No. 322 of 1979) and Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (M/s. Arun B. Desai, V. K. Behl, H. K. Puri and Mrs. Laxmi Anand, Advocates with him) (in C.A. No. 324 of 1979), for Appellants; Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Pramod Swarup, Advocate with him) (in C. A. Nos. 146 of 1977 and 322 of 1979) and Mr. S. S. Khanduja and Miss Kusum Chowdhry, Advocates (in C. A. Nos. 146 of 1978 and 323-324 of 1979), for Respondents; Mr. J. G. Shah, Advocate (in C. A. No. 322 of 1979), Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate (in S.L.P. No.2939 and C.A. No. 322 of 1979) (Mr. A. K. Srivastava and Vineet Kumar, Advocates) for Respondent in C. A. No. 322 of 1979 and for Petitioner in S.L.P. No. 2939 of 1979.

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.K.SRIVASTAVA, ANAND PARKASH, Arun B.Desai, F.S.NARIMAN, H.K.PURI, J.G.Shah, Kusum Chaudhary, LAXMI ANAND PARKASH, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, PROMOD SVARUP, S.S.Khanduja, V.K.Bahl, VINIT KUMAR

Headnote:Execution of trusts - Trustee cannot delegate performance of matters relating to sale to co-trustee - Authorisation in favour of co-trustee - Power conferred on board of trustees to sale trust property — Intervention by court

       – The law governing the execution of trusts is well settled. In the case of a private trust, where there are more trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the trust. The concurrence of all is in general necessary in a transaction, and a majority cannot bind the trust estate, as held in In re: HEH The Nizam’s Jewellery Trust, AIR 1980 SC 17 = 1979(4) SCC 602 = 1980 (1) SCR 459.

JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.:—All these appeals and special leave petition are by the management of five co-operative sugar factories in Gujarat State. The demand of the workmen of the factories in Gujarat was for payment of the U. P. Government revised scales for sugar factories in U. P. regarding pay, dearness allowance and other benefits.

2. The second Wage Board for the sugar industry gave its report in 1970. The Wage Boards report was due to expire on 31st October, 1974. The Government of U. P. on 31st October, 1974, issued the U. P. Pattern Scales of Wages and Dearness Allowance for workmen employed in all sugar factories working by Vacuum Pan Manufacturing Process. The Labour Minister gave the award and as a result of that award, an order was passed under Section 3, sub-clause (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This order relating to U. P. Pattern of Pay, Graduated Dearness Allowance, Variable Dearness Allowance came into force from 31st October, 1974 and effect was to be given to these pay scales and dearness allowance from 1st October, 1974. As the sugar factories were seasonal factories a retention allowance for unskilled seasonal workmen for off-season at the rate of 10 of the basic wage and dearness allowance payable during the crushing year 1974-75 was also provided for. The demand put forward by the workmen in all these appeals is for payment according to the U. P. Pattern.

3. The Industrial Court, Gujarat, increased the Graduated dearness allowance of the unskilled employees from Rs. 21 to Rs.40. But this increase was not given at one stage but was spread over in three stages, the first stage being from 1st July 1976 to 30th June 1977, the second stage being from 1st July 1977 34 to 30th June 1978 and the third stage being from 1st July 1978 to 30th June, 1979 and onwards. The increased graduated dearness allowance for the first period would be Rs.32 per month; for the second period Rs.36 per month and for the third period Rs.40 per month. The existing basic wage for the unskilled employee is Rs.110. The variable dearness allowance of Rs.151 per month is being paid and the Court found that there was no dispute as raised in demand No. 2(c). Regarding variable dearness allowance demands Nos. 3, 4 and 5 the Court revised the rates from 83 paise per point on the rise over 301 points of All India Average Consumer Price Index Number for Industrial Workers (Base 1960=100) at Rs.1.00 per point for skilled B operatives and for clerks drawing up to Rs.150 per month as asked for in demand No. 5(i)(b) and from Re.0.95 to Rs.1.12 for All India Average Consumers Price Index for other employees as per demand No. 5(i) (d). This increase was also spread over for a period of three years i.e. 7 paise for the first period from 1st July, 1976 to 30th June, 1977; 5 paise for the second period from 1st July 1977 to 30th June, 1978 and 5 paise for the third period from 1st July 1978 to 30th June, 1979 and onwards, Regarding demand No.7 relating to retaining allowance to be paid to the unskilled seasonal employees at the rate of 10 per cent of the basic wage and dearness allowance payable during the crushing season 1974-75 and for subsequent years, the Court found that the demand was justified. The Court gave a retention allowance of 10 as demanded of the basic wage and dearness allowance payable during the crushing season 1974-75 and also for the three subsequent years.

4. On appeal the High Court passed an order on 18th October, 1978 as follows stating that reasons will be given later;

"(1) The impugned award is hereby quashed and set aside.

(2) There is no justification for the phasing awarded by the Industrial Court and hence the phasing is quashed and set aside.

(3) and (4) x x x

(5) The respective co-operative sugar societies will pay the costs of the other side. Costs quantified at Rs.300 in each matter. Rule is made absolute accordingly in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1136 of 1977, 1148 of 1977, 602 of 1978 and 311 of 1978.










































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