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

1964 Supreme(Ori) 52

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And G. K. Misra, J.
HINDUSTHAN STEEL LTD. - Appellant
Versus
WORKERS OF REFRACTORIES DEPARTMENT, HINDUSTHAN STEEL LTD. - Respondent
O. J. C.  261  Of  1963
Decided On : April 30, 1964

Advocates Appeared:
R.C.PATNAIK, R.N.MISRA

The financial capacity of an industry to pay wages should be based on an industry-cum-region basis after taking a fair cross section of the industry.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - WAGES - FIXATION - FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF EMPLOYER - INDUSTRY-CUM-REGION BASIS - GRADES OF PAY - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIAL GRADES OF PAY - GRATUITOUS ADVICE - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The Hindusthan Steel Ltd., Rourkela (Employer) challenged the validity of an industrial tribunal award granting wage increases to certain classes of its workmen. The tribunal had considered the financial position of the Employer as a whole, including its profitable branches at Bhilai and Durgapur, in determining its capacity to pay. The Employer contended that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by fixing scales of pay instead of merely grades of pay, and that it erred in making recommendations for special grades of pay for masons employed for supervisory work and in giving gratuitous advice regarding benefits for helpers.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the tribunal did not err in considering the financial position of the Employer as a whole, as the Employer was one concern owned entirely by the Union Government and the profits of its different branches were pooled together. The court also held that the tribunal had jurisdiction to fix scales of pay, as the terms of reference allowed it to fix grades of pay such as Rs. 40, Rs. 50, Rs. 100, etc., and scales of pay were merely a more specific way of expressing grades of pay. The court further held that the tribunal's recommendations for special grades of pay for masons employed for supervisory work and its gratuitous advice regarding benefits for helpers were not invalid, as they were not binding on the Employer.

Issues: 1. Whether the tribunal erred in considering the financial position of the Employer as a whole, including its profitable branches at Bhilai and Durgapur, in determining its capacity to pay. 2. Whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by fixing scales of pay instead of merely grades of pay. 3. Whether the tribunal erred in making recommendations for special grades of pay for masons employed for supervisory work. 4. Whether the tribunal erred in giving gratuitous advice regarding benefits for helpers.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The tribunal did not err in considering the financial position of the Employer as a whole, as the Employer was one concern owned entirely by the Union Government and the profits of its different branches were pooled together. 2. The tribunal had jurisdiction to fix scales of pay, as the terms of reference allowed it to fix grades of pay such as Rs. 40, Rs. 50, Rs. 100, etc., and scales of pay were merely a more specific way of expressing grades of pay. 3. The tribunal's recommendations for special grades of pay for masons employed for supervisory work were not invalid, as they were not binding on the Employer. 4. The tribunal's gratuitous advice regarding benefits for helpers was not invalid, as it was not binding on the Employer.

Final Decision: The petition challenging the validity of the industrial tribunal award was dismissed.

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. , Rourkela (hereinafter referred to as the Employer) challenging the validity of the award dated the 5th June 1963 given by the industrial Tribunal, Orissa, in an Industrial dispute between the Employer and certain classes of its workmen. The workmen raised disputes mainly as regards increase in the wages of certain classes of (sic) and six such disputes were referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The first dispute dealt with the grade of pay to be fixed for Tearing Out Gangmen of the Refractories Department, but as this dispute was amicably settled by the representatives of the Employer and its workmen, it need not be considered. The remaining five disputes referred to the tribunal for adjudication are as follows :-

(i) Whether the Khalasis of the Refractories Department of Hindusthan steel Ltd. should be designated as 'semi-skilled workmen' and, if so, whether they should be given the grade of Rs. 50/-with effect from the same date as in the case of workmen In the Steel Melting Shop. (ii) Whether the disparity in the grade of female mazdoors in the refractories Department of Hindusthan Limited and those of similar female workmen on the same floor area in the Steel Melting Shop, should be removed and if so whether they should be paid the grade of rs. 40/-with retrospective effect. (iii) Whether the masons of the Refractories Department should be given the same grades as are being given in the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. , Bhilai and whether the disparity which now exists should be removed, and, if so, whether their grades would be Rs. 150 and Rs. 200/ -. (iv) Whether the grade of the Carpenters of the Refractories Department should be Rs. 100/- (v) Whether the Refractories Mate Masons and Mate Mason Mistries of the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. Rourkela, should be given the designation of supervisor and whether the grade of Rs. 200/-as given to all Supervisors in other departments of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. , Rourkela should be paid. "

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with each of the aforesaid disputes I should refer to certain general observations made by the Tribunal. The reference was made to the tribunal on 7-4-1962 but it appears that the Employer and the Workmen came to some sort of understanding as regards wages payable to all classes of workers with effect from 1-7-1962. Hence, the Union which represented the workers pressed the dispute before the Tribunal only for the period prior to 1-7-1962 and for wages in the higher grade thereafter, in case the claim of the workmen was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal then considered the larger question as to whether the employer was in a position to bear the financial strain. Though it was admitted that the Rourkela branch of the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. suffered a loss of about 27 lakhs of rupees during the year 1962-63, the Hindusthan Steel as a whole (which has branches at Bhilai and Durgapur) made an overall profit of Rs. 9. 58 crores during that period even after making allowance for the aforesaid loss sustained by the Rourkela Branch. The Tribunal further pointed out that the employer also in its written statement, dated 15-9-1962, did not urge that the claim of the workmen should be rejected on the ground that the Rourkela branch suffered loss. It further observed :

"hence it was not seriously urged before me that reclassification, if any of the workers in the Refractories may adversely affect the financial position of the employer. Accordingly if the claim of the Union is otherwise justified and acceptable, then it should not be rejected on mere financial consideration".

( 3 ) I shall now deal with the findings of the aforesaid five issues : dispute No. " (i)--The finding of the Tribunal was that the Khalasis of the refractories Department should be treated as semi-skilled workers after the expiry of one year from the date of their Joining the Department. All














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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