Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1953 Supreme(Mad) 320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P.V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Venkatarama Ayyar,JJ.
The South India Estate Labour Relations Organisation by its Secretary representing the managements of the following 180 Estates, the Colacumbie Estate
Versus
The State of Madras
Writ Petition No. 718 of 1952.
Decided On : 09 October 1953

Advocates:
K. Rajah Aiyar and R. Ramasubbu Aiyar for Petitioner.
The Advocate-General (V.K. Thiruvenkatachari), The Government Pleader (P. Satyanarayana Raju), Messrs. Row and Reddy, S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, Messrs. Arunachalam and Jagannadha Das and Co., V. Venkataraman, P.S. Balakrishnan and P.S. Ramachandran for Respondents.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, have different purposes and scopes and that the latter does not impliedly repeal the former.

Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Reference to Industrial Tribunal - Fixation of Wages - Jurisdiction - Implied Repeal - Workmen - Bonus - Amendment of Reference.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an association representing plantation estates in South India, challenged the Government's reference of a dispute concerning wages to an Industrial Tribunal under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after minimum wages had been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, had different purposes and scopes and that the latter did not impliedly repeal the former. The Court also held that the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was not illegal or unfair, that the question of whether maistries and kole maistries were workmen was a question of fact to be decided by the Tribunal, and that the reference was valid except as regards bonus for 1949-50, which had been settled.
Issues: 1. Whether the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, impliedly repealed the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to the fixation of wages. 2. Whether the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was illegal or unfair. 3. Whether maistries and kole maistries were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Whether the reference was valid with respect to bonus for 1949-50. 5. Whether the Government had the jurisdiction to amend a reference made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, had different purposes and scopes. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was enacted to prevent strikes and lockouts and to provide for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was enacted to provide for the statutory fixation of minimum rates of wages in certain employments. The Court found that the two enactments were not inconsistent and that they could co-exist. 2. The Court held that the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was not illegal or unfair. The Court noted that there had been a long history of disputes between the management and the employees, that conciliation proceedings had failed, and that the Labour Commissioner had reported that the matter could be settled only by adjudication by a tribunal. 3. The Court held that the question of whether maistries and kole maistries were workmen was a question of fact to be decided by the Tribunal. The Court noted that the definition of "workmen" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was broad and that it included any person employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward. The Court held that it was for the Tribunal to decide whether the duties of maistries and kole maistries involved any work, manual or clerical, skilled or unskilled. 4. The Court held that the reference was valid except as regards bonus for 1949-50, which had been settled. The Court noted that the settlement had taken place before the reference was made and that there was no dispute concerning the bonus for 1949-50. 5. The Court held that the Government had the jurisdiction to amend a reference made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court noted that it would have been open to the Government to make an independent reference concerning any matter not covered by the previous reference and that the amendment was a mere technicality.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the reference to the Industrial Tribunal insofar as it related to bonus for 1949-50. The Court dismissed the petition in the main with costs of the workers.

Venkatarama Ayyar, J.-

The substantial question that is raised in this application is whether it is competent to the Government to refer a dispute concerning wages to adjudication by a Tribunal under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947, after there had been a fixation of minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, XI of 1948. The petitioner is the South India Estate Labour Relations Organisation, an association representing 180 plantation estates in South India. On 25th September, 1950, the Government of Madras appointed under section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, a committe for fixing minimum wages in plantations and acting on their report, fixed minimum wages by G.O. No. 1093, dated 20th March, 1952, to take effect from 25th March, 1952. While the above Committee was carrying on its investigation, disputes arose between employers and employees in various estates. At a meeting of staff of these estates held on 20th May, 1951, a resolution was passed demanding an increase in the basic salary and dearness allowance and threatening, that in case of non-compliance within fourteen days, a strike-ballot would be taken. Vide Exhibit A annexed to the reply affidavit in support of the petition. A copy of this resolution was sent to the owners of all the estates. On 7th June, 1951, the petitioner replied that with a view to secure an agreed settlement the estates had agreed to accept the union as entitled to make demands and “failing redress to proceed to secure adjudication by an Industrial Tribunal without further reference to the organization”; and that therefore the union should withdraw the notice and work for settlement, Exhibit B. To this, the union replied by Exhibit C dated 14th June, 1951, that no action would be taken on their notice Exhibit A till 15th July, 1951. Meantime on 10th June, 1951, the Malabar District Estates Workers’ Union passed a resolution demanding an increase in wages, Exhibit F. The Government thereupon started conciliation proceedings and on 22nd September, 1951, the petitioner received notice that there would be a conference of the employers and employees on 16th and 17th October at Coonoor and on the 19th at Valparai. The parties met but failed to reach an agreement and on 6th November, 1951, the Labour Commissioner sent his report Exhibit G in which he stated: “As the union is maintaining a sustained agitation over these matters, a settlement is possible only by adjudication”. It was after this that the Government took action under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act and referred the disputes to the adjudication of an Industrial Tribunal by G.O. No. 1240, dated 24th March, 1952. The annexure sets out the matters so referred and they include fixation of wages for field workers, kole maistries, factory workers and pluckers; and bonus for the years 1949-1950. On 25th June, 1952, the Government issued a memorandum No. 59079 amending the reference dated 24th March, 1952, under G.O. No. 1240 by adding some more matters under annexure No. 2. In pursuance of these references the matter is now pending adjudication as Industrial Dispute No. 8 (Special) 1952 before the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore. It is at this stage that the present application was filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the reference both under G.O. No. 1240 dated 24th March, 1952 and under the memorandum dated 25th June, 1952.

Mr. K. Rajah Aiyar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, urged the following points in support of the petition:

1. The reference to the Industrial Tribunal in so far as it relates to fixation of wages is without jurisdiction as the same had been already fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, (XI of 1948).

2. The reference is incompetent in so far as it relates to maistries and kole maistries, as they are not workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, (XIV of 1947).

3. The reference in so far as it relates to bonus is bad as that had already been

Click Here to Read the rest of this document