Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Seshachalapati, J.
WORKMEN OF BHAJRANG JUTE MILLS, LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
BHAJRANG JUTE MILLS, LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondent
Decided on : 22-12-1959
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 10(1)(C) - FIXATION OF SCALES OF PAY AND DEARNESS ALLOWANCE - FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF MANAGEMENT - COMPARABLE INDUSTRIES - MINIMUM WAGES - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The Bhajrang Jute Mills Staff Union filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in an industrial dispute between the union and the management of Bhajrang Jute Mills, Ltd., Guntur. The union had demanded fixation of scales of pay, minimum wages, and an increase in dearness allowances for the workmen, but the tribunal had rejected these demands, finding that the management did not have the financial capacity to bear the additional burden and that the wages and dearness allowance paid by the mills were comparable to those paid by similar industries in the region.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction, acted without legal authority, committed an error of law apparent on the record, or violated any principles of natural justice. The court found that the tribunal had considered the financial capacity of the management, the prevailing rates of wages in similar industries, and the demands of the workmen, and had reached a reasonable conclusion. The court also held that the tribunal was not required to fix minimum wages in the absence of a reference under the Minimum Wages Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. 2. Whether the tribunal erred in finding that the management did not have the financial capacity to bear the additional burden of the demands made by the workmen. 3. Whether the tribunal erred in rejecting the demands of the workmen for fixation of scales of pay, minimum wages, and an increase in dearness allowances. 4. Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to interfere with the award of the tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as it was referred to it by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The tribunal did not err in finding that the management did not have the financial capacity to bear the additional burden of the demands made by the workmen. The tribunal had considered the balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, and other financial statements of the management, as well as the evidence of witnesses, and had reached a reasonable conclusion. 3. The tribunal did not err in rejecting the demands of the workmen for fixation of scales of pay, minimum wages, and an increase in dearness allowances. The tribunal had considered the wages and dearness allowance paid by the mills in comparison to those paid by similar industries in the region, and had found that the mills were paying comparable wages and dearness allowance. 4. The High Court did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the award of the tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction, acted without legal authority, committed an error of law apparent on the record, or violated any principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
ORDER :
Seshachalapati, J.—This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the Industrial Dispute No. 45 of 1966, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and to quash the award dated 11 November 1957 made therein.
2. The petitioners are the workmen of Bhajrang Jute Mills, Ltd., Guntur, represented by Bhajrang Jute Mills Staff Union. The respondent 1 is Bhajrang Jute Mills, Ltd., represented by its manager for the time being.
3. The petitioner-union made certain demands for the fixation of scales of pay, minimum wages and increase in the dearness allowances to the workmen. The management did not agree. There were some attempts at conciliation which proved abortive. Thereupon, the Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O. Ms. No. 156, dated 19 February 1957, issued a notification u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act, 1947) in these terms:
4. The following notification will be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette:
Notification
5. Whereas an industrial dispute has arisen between the workmen and the employers of the Bhajrang Jute Mills, Guntur, in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;
6. And whereas in the opinion of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
7. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act) Central Act 14 of 1947), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the industrial tribunal having its place of Sitting at Hyderabad.
Annexure
I. (i) Whether the demand of the work men for fixation of scales of pay of various categories of monthly paid staff is justified?
(ii) If so, what should be the scales ?
II. (i) Whether the demand of the work men for payment of dearness allowance at the rate of 3 annas per point over the Eluru cost of living index is justified.
(ii) If not, to what relief, are they entitled ?
The reference was duly registered as Industrial Dispute No. 45 of 1957 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, and was enquired into. Eight witnesses on behalf of the union and three witnesses on behalf of the management were examined. A large number of documents were filed in the case. On a consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, the tribunal held that the revision of scales of wages or enhancement of dearness allowance in accordance with the demands of the workmen could not be made. However, the tribunal held that there was a great disparity In the wages of the mazdoors, namely, scavengers, sweepers, lorry cleaners and canteen workers and that there was no justification for such a difference. The tribunal, therefore, directed that the mazdoors should be paid in addition to 11 annas per day, a dearness allowance of Us. 1-1-0 per day. aggregating to Rs. 45-8-0 per month. As to the clerks, it was held that the starting pay should be raised to Rs. 40, with a flat dear-ness allowance of Rs. 30. Aggrieved by that order the union have filed the present petition.
8. Mr. Rajeswara Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has raised before me the following contentions:
(i) that 'the appointment of the tribunal that passed the present award is incompetent;
(ii) that the finding of the tribunal that the question of fixation of minimum wages had not been referred to it is palpably incorrect, as in the very process of revising the scales of pay is implicit the question of fixation of minimum wages;
(iii) that the finding of the tribunal that it had not been proved that the management had the necessary financial capacity to warrant a revision of scales of wages or enhancement of dearness allowance In accordance with the demands of the workmen is entirely opposed to the evidence tendered in the case; and
(iv) that the tribunal has ignored the crucial evidence tendered in the case and declined to draw the necessary inferences from the prov
AI
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
