Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.Alagiriswami : N.L.Untwalia : P.K.Goswami
Bombay Gas Company Limited
Versus
Jagannath Pandurang
Case No. : 358 of 1973
Date of Decision : 8/12/75
Advocates Appeared: Bhandare : Bhartari P.C. : Dadachanji J.B. : Dhandare S. : Jetley Manju : Mathur O.C. : Mehta K.D. : Narain Shri : Parekh M.C.Bhandare : Parekh P.H. : Sorabjee S.J.
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Section 15 - Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948 – Section 18(3) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 20 - Factories Act, 1948 - Company - Workmen - Overtime Wages - Respondents are workmen of appellant company working in different departments of companys works - Respondents Nos. 1 to 14 are syphon pumpers - They filed 14 applications before Additional Authority claiming overtime wages - Respondents Nos. 15 to 20 are mains workers - They filed 66 applications before same authority claiming overtime wages for period - - Whether company was bound to give a paid weekly day off to workers of mains department and to pay them compensation for loss suffered by them - Whether they are entitled to be paid overtime wages - Whether workman should get overtime wages in same way as workmen governed by Factories Act had been considered in reference which resulted in award - Whether they are entitled to overtime wages under the provisions of the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act - whether the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act is applicable to these workmen has been raised for first time in these proceedings – Held, Workers neither put forward contention that they were entitled to benefit of Bombay Shops & Establishments Act nor even that on considerations similar to those applicable to persons governed by Bombay Shops & Establishments Act they should also be paid overtime wages under provisions of that Act - Incidentally it shows that question as to whether Bombay Shops & Establishments Act is applicable to these workmen has been raised for first time in these proceedings - Doctrine of res judicata is a wholesome one which is applicable not merely to matters governed by provisions of Code of Civil Procedure but to all litigations - General principle underlying doctrine of res judicata is ultimately based on considerations of public holiday - One important considerration of public policy is that decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and other principle is that no one should be made to face same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice - Disputes Between this company and its workers quite often come to this court - Case in Bombay Gas Co. v. Shridhar Bhau is one such - Other cases are found in Bombay Gas Co. v. Gopal Bhiva and Ramlanshan Jageshar v. Bombay Gas Co - If workers are dissatisfied with any of items in respect of which their claim has been rejected it is open to them to raise a fresh industrial dispute - Award has stood test of time for 25 years, a very rare occurrence indeed these days - Judgment of High court is set aside with result that petitions of all workers stand dismissed - Special leave granted in this case was subject to conditions that appellant would pay costs of appeal to respondents in any event - Appellant will therefore bear its own costs and pay costs of respondents - Appeal allowed.
A.ALAGIRISWAMI, J.
(1) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of the Bombay High court in Special Civil Application No. 1967 of 1965.
(2) THE 118 respondents are workmen of the appellant company working in different departments of the companys works. Respondents Nos. 1 to 14 are syphon pumpers. They filed 14 applications before the Additional Authority under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming overtime v\ages for the ps"iod February 195 7/01/1958. Respondents Nos. 15 to 20 are mains workers. They filed 66 applications before the same authority claiming overtime wages for the period December 195 6/11/1957. Respondents Nos. 81 to 118 filed 38 applications before the Third Additional Authority claiming wages for weekly off days. They belonged to the mains, heating appliances and fitting departments. They had joined the appellant company after 1948. The relevance of the reference to their having become workers of the company after 1948 will become clear when we deal with the facts of this case later.
(3) BEFORE the authority under the Payment of Wages Act the company contended that all the claims were barred under an award of the Industrial tribunal in Ref. No. 54 of 1949, which was made on 30/03/1950 and published on 11/05/1950. The authority held that (1) the claims of the booster attendants for wages for overtime work and weekly off days were covered by the award, (2) the claims of applicants other than booster attendants were not covered by the award, and (3) the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act was not applicable to them, and dismissed the applications of respondents Nos. 1 to 80. The applications made by respondents Nos. 81 to 118 were allowed by the Third Additional Authority holding that the award was no bar to those applications and that the provisions of the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act were applicable.
(4) APPEALS were filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 80 in the court of Small Causes, Bombay. The appellant company filed an appeal against the judgment in the applications of respondents Nos. 83 to 118. The court of Small Causes dealt with the appeals filed by the workmen as well as the appeal filed by the company and by a common judgment held that the claims of workers for overtime wages and wages for weekly off days were barred by the award. The workmens appeals were therefore dismissed and the companys appeal was allowed. It was, however, held that the appellant company was a commercial establishment within the meaning of that term under the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act.
(5) ALL the workmen filed a writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, challenging the judgment of the court of Small Causes. The High court held that the claims of the respondents were not barred by the award and remanded the applications of respondents Nos. 1 to 80 to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for ascertaining and decreeing the amount. As regards respondents Nos. 81 to 118 the judgment of the Third Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was restored.
(6) AS the award of the Industrial tribunal, Bombay in Ref. No. 51 of 1949 is the most important factor that has to be taken into account in considering this appeal it would be proper to refer to portions of that award which relate to this appeal. About 28 demands covering a variety of subjects were referred to the tribunal. "The demands out of which this appeal arises were Nos. 11 and 12 dealt with in paragraphs 113 to 126 of the award. Demand No. 11 was as follows:
(A) Workers should get a paid weekly off.
(B) Workers of mains, services and district fittings departments and lamp-repairers, who have been adversely affected in the matter of their earnings on account of closing down of the overtime and Sunday work, should be compensated for the loss suffered by them; compensation being the amount lost by them since the scheme was introduced.
Demand No. 12 was as follows:
ALL work extending
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
