SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH, BOMBAY
Versus
INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Civil Appeal No. 3715(NL) of 1984{From the Judgment and Order dated September 1, 1982 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 247 of 1977, in Misc. Petition No. 627 of 1977 : 1982 Lab IC 1954}
Decided on 12-2-1993
Advocates appeared:
V.J. Francis, V. Subramaniam and P. Padma Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant;
G.B. Pai, Senior Advocate (P. Ramaswami and H.S. Parihar, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Demand for payment - Dearness allowance - Appellant-union submitted a demand for payment of dearness allowance to daily-rated workmen employed at the respondents Wadala Factory at the same rate as is paid to the monthly-rated employees, these demands were placed before the Conciliation Officer and thereafter before Conciliation Board - Conciliation Board submitted its failure report - It appears that the recommendations of the Central Wage Board were awaited at that time and the company agreed to implement the final recommendations of the said Board as accepted by the Central Government. appellant-union submitted a memorandum before the Government reiterating the said demand - They claimed the said benefit with effect - Government referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal - Respondent-company filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the order of reference - High Court disposed of the writ petition in the following terms: "By consent the order Exhibit C is set aside without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to refer fresh dispute in respect of the same demands according to law - Held, workmen had never demanded reinstatement before the management. They, however, made a demand for reinstatement in their representation/demand made before the Government and the Government referred the dispute relating to reinstatement to the Tribunal. It is in the above circumstances that the said observations were made. In this case, however, the demand in question was raised by the workmen before the management as far back - Court opinion that the Division Bench was not right in holding that the Industrial Tribunal had no power to grant the relief claimed by the workmen with effect from a date anterior notwithstanding the fact that the said demand specifically claimed the benefit from an anterior date i.e. November 15, 1965, and which demand was referred to it by the Government.
JUDGMENT
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.—This appeal is preferred by the Labour Union, Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay against the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court allowing Writ Appeal No. 247 of 1977. The appeal was preferred by the respondent-employer, the Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by it (Management) against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. The main question arising for decision in this appeal pertains to the power of the Industrial Tribunal to award relief with effect from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute by the Labour Union.
2. On November 2, 1965 the appellant-union submitted a demand for payment of dearness allowance to the daily-rated workmen employed at the respondents Wadala Factory at the same rate as is paid to the monthly-rated employees, with effect from January 1, 1964. On November 15, 1965 these demands were placed before the Conciliation Officer and thereafter before the Conciliation Board. On March 15, 1967 the Conciliation Board submitted its failure report. It appears that the recommendations of the Central Wage Board were awaited at that time and the company agreed to implement the final recommendations of the said Board as accepted by the Central Government. On April 26, 1968 the appellant-union submitted a memorandum before the Government reiterating the said demand. They claimed the said benefit with effect from November 15, 1965. On July 5, 1968 the Government referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. In November 1968 the respondent-company filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the order of reference. On February 27, 1973 the High Court disposed of the writ petition in the following terms: "By consent the order Exhibit C dated July 5, 1968 is set aside without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to refer fresh dispute in respect of the same demands according to law."
3. On March 19, 1973 the appellant submitted a demand to the management claiming the very same relief with effect from November 15, 1965. On the basis of the said demand, the Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, on March 26, 1973. The dispute referred reads as follows:
"All the daily-rated workmen from Wadala factory of the company should be paid dearness allowance at the same scale that is given to monthly-rated staff of the factory with retrospective effect from November 15, 1965 i.e. at the rate given below:
Slab salary
D.A. index 311 to 320
Variation for 10 points
Up to Rs 100
65% of basic salary or
revised textile scale for
all days of month
whichever is higher
5%
Rs 101 to 200
30%
2%
Rs 201 to 300
15%
1%
Rs 310 and above
10%
1%"
4. On January 3, 1977 the Tribunal made its award. It directed that "all the daily-rated workmen from Wadala Factory of the company should be paid dearness allowance at the rate of 15% of the revised textile rate with effect from January 1, 1968. The company is further directed to pay all the arrears to these workmen within two months from the date of the publication of the award. Award accordingly. No order as to costs."
5. The management questioned the validity of the said award by way of a writ petition in the Bombay High Court (Miscellaneous Petition No. 627 of 1977). On June 15, 1977 a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the error, if any, in the award of the Tribunal is not an error of jurisdiction calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent-company preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the Division Bench under its judgment and order dated September 1, 1992, impugned herein. The Division Bench affirmed the award except with respect to the date from which the relief was granted by the Tribunal. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award relief to the workmen with effect from a date prior to the date on which th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.