AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.I. Rebello, J.—The petitioner/employer has preferred this petition against the Award dated June 10, 1996 to the extent that the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the reference as made and as raised on behalf of the Company. By a reference the appropriate Government had referred disputes raised by both the union as well as the employer, that is the petitioner herein. The petitioner had sought to categorise the workmen under five grades against the existing categories. The petitioner had also sought to impose a bar on the annual increment based on efficiency. The petitioner has further sought replacement of the existing Dearness Allowance by following the CPI (Simla Series) base 1960. Next, the petitioners sought classification of the employees into grades, fitment, hours of working, the right to take disciplinary action for habitual late attendance, maternity leave and gratuity.
In support of their demand for re-classification and D.A. pattern, the petitioner''s examined as their witness Shri Sandeep S. Thakur, Administration Manager (West) of Madura Coats Ltd. The Tribunal in para 19 has considered the demands raised by workmen read with Demand No. 1 raised by the employer. Both the demands by the petitioner herein and the Union have been rejected. The demand by the Union was rejected on the ground that the Union had not produced any evidence worthy of credence in support of the reference. The Tribunal further noted that the workers were in a confused state of mind at one stage of the reference. It is set out that as soon as the Company has raised the contention against the present demands in the written statement, the Union by letter dated March 9, 1987 (Exhibit 6 at Serial No. 6 to Exhibit C-14) proposed to substantiate demand by fresh demands as per Annexure ''A'' to the letter and sought intervention of Deputy Commissioner of Labour for conciliation and reference of the fresh demands. The Tribunal then proceeded to hold that the basic scales of pay as demanded by the workmen cannot be considered in isolation nor adjudicated independently but have to be examined in the context of notice of change given by the Company which have been referred for adjudication. The Tribunal noted the present prevailing pay- scales. Whilst considering the demand for wages the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that minimum wages have been fixed for commercial establishments and that the workers in respect of whom reference was made were drawing more than the total wages. The Tribunal then proceeded to hold that the revision of wage-scale or correction suggested by either of the parties in respect of the wage-scale, classification, Dearness Allowance, are not found justified. The Tribunal then noted that the classification of employees was done by settlement dated January 22, 1980 and 10 grades were agreed to and wage-scales were fixed mentioning the different occupations in those grades. In that light the Tribunal found that the demand for change by either of the parties in any manner whatsoever resulting in disturbing the old standing practice and custom cannot be entertained much less justified. The Tribunal then held that demand for re-classification of these occupations in the different grades, in the absence of any justification being given and material placed before the Tribunal, the demands of both the Union and the employer for the new grades and salary cannot be granted and that parties were free to opt for separate reference to that effect. The Tribunal then proceeded to hold that it would have no jurisdiction to re- classify the occupations in the grades in the circumstances.
Considering the Dearness Allowance the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the revision of Dearness Allowance made by either of the parties cannot be independently adjudicated without reference to the basic-pay-scales demanded by the Union because the demanded dearness allowance scheme would be linked with basic pay. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that demand for Dearness Allowance as well as the basic pay as a whole raised by both the parties is liable to be rejected.
Insofar as the demand regarding gratuity as raised by the petitioner that gratuity should be payable only as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Tribunal did not agree with the same and rejected the demand of the petitioner and has granted gratuity as set out in para 67 of the Award. I do not propose to deal with the demand as raised by the Union. Suffice it to say that the demand as raised by the Management has been rejected.
Insofar as the demand pertaining to efficiency bar, the same was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that if the demand was considered it would give a weapon in the hands of the employer to commit partiality between different sets of workmen regardless of their merits. The Tribunal also found that in the event the workmen were not discharging their duties, the petitioner was free to take action under the Standing Orders and accordingly rejected the same.
Considering the above the Tribunal in para 83(ii) held that Demand Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 raised by the employees cannot be granted and consequently are rejected. Demand No. 5 was dependent on accepting Demand Nos. 1 to 4. The same has not been accepted and consequently stood rejected. Demand No. 10 has been rejected. Insofar as Demand Nos. 7,8 and 9 are concerned, the Tribunal found no merit considering the fact that Demand No. 8 by the employee has been rejected. Demand No. 8 not being pressed, the question of answering Demand No. 9 as raised by the petitioner herein would not arise.
At the hearing of the petition, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Award of the Tribunal to the extent that it has refused classification in gradation discloses non- application of mind. The Tribunal ignored the submissions and the supporting statements filed by the petitioner pointing out that neutralisation of the cost of living under the existing Scheme of Dearness Allowance, was much beyond 100 per cent, and as such opposed to the recommendation of the National Commission for Labour and approved by the Supreme Court that neutralisation should not be beyond 94% to 95%. It is also contended that the Tribunal did not even consider the wage scales with Dearness Allowance Scheme proposed by the Company which was a term of reference. The Scheme was a Scientific Scheme framed in keeping with the object of realistic wage differential for different categories reflecting the job values. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the infirmities in the present scheme of dearness allowance which is linked to the consumer price index and also the basic wages on percentage basis which disproportionate increase in the amount of dearness allowance on the rise of consumer price index and also whenever there is increase in the basic. It is then contended that the Tribunal erred in observing that the Company cannot be permitted by any stretch of imagination to curtail the benefits already in existence in favour of the workmen under various settlements which have become conditions of service. Various other contentions have been raised.
It may be made clear that in the present petition what is being challenged are the challenge to the Award by the Management insofar as the demands raised by them. In the present petition neither the demands of the Union nor that matter the findings of the Tribunal on those demands are being considered. No doubt insofar as the Tribunal is concerned some of the findings are overlapping.
To understand the challenges as raised it will be necessary first to consider the position of law in the matter of interfering with the existing conditions of service of workmen and more so whether it would have the effect of depriving them of benefits under existing conditions of service. In The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Workmen and Others, , the question before the Apex Court was the retirement age of employee in the region, therein the Bombay Office. It was sought to be contended that the Company had offices and branch in various places. That the majority of the workmen both clerical and non-clerical were based at Calcutta. In these circumstances there should be no change, considering that only minority of the workers were posted in Bombay. The Apex Court while dealing with the contention observed as under The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Workmen and Others, ;
"There is no doubt that in the case of an all-India concern it would be advisable to have uniform conditions of service throughout India and if uniform conditions prevail in any such concern they should not be lightly changed. At the same time it cannot be forgotten that Industrial adjudication is based, in this country at least, on what is known as industry-cum-region basis and cases may arise where it may be necessary in following this principle to make changes even where the conditions of service of an All India concern are uniform. Besides, however desirable uniformity may be in the case of All India concerns, the Tribunal cannot abstain from seeing that fair conditions of service prevail in the industry with which it is concerned. If therefore any scheme, which may be uniformly in force throughout India in the case of an all India concern, appears to be unfair and not in accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters, it would be the duty of the Tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring it into line with the prevailing conditions in such matters, particularly in the region in which the Tribunal is functioning irrespective of the fact that the demand is made by only a small minority of the workmen employed in one place out of the many where the all India concern carries on business."
I have referred to these observations in the Judgment as it was contended partly on behalf of the petitioner that their proposal of pay scale was to bring about uniformity, amongst employees working with the petitioner vis-a-vis their counterparts in the rest of the country. It is clear therefore that the Apex Court has taken the view that in case of large companies which have offices all over India uniformity is not necessarily the sole criteria. It will be the duty of the Tribunal to bring the conditions of service into line with the prevailing conditions, particularly in the region in which the Tribunal is functioning irrespective of the fact mat demand is made only by a small minority of workmen employed at one place out of the many, where the all India concern carries on business.
In Mazgaon Dock Ltd. v. Association of Engineering Workers and Ors. 1989 2 CLR 713 , the issue before a Division Bench of this Court was whether the existing system of dearness allowance prevailing in the Mazgaon Dock Ltd. was to be continued or replaced by uniform rate of dearness allowance prescribed by Public Bureau of Enterprises. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the matter held that when an adjudicating body is called upon to replace the existing system, the first thing that it is required to consider is whether the system which is sought to be introduced is more or less beneficial to the workmen compared to the existing one and if it finds that the new system is less beneficial than or deprives the workmen of the benefits available in the existing system, it has to stay its hands off the new system, unless of course there are compelling reasons to do so. In Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and another, once again the issue was whether the existing system of dearness allowance ought to be changed. The Division Bench of this Court held that where there are no compelling reasons why the existing system which is beneficial to the workmen should be replaced by new one which is less beneficial to them and which would result in steep decline in incomes which they would otherwise gain must necessarily result in holding that the system prevailing ought not to be interfered with.
Considering the law as declared by the Apex Court and by this Court can it be said that the Award of the Tribunal in as much as it has rejected the demand for a new structure of basic wages, classification and change of dearness allowance would be justified? Uniformity in the various establishments of the petitioner is the basic contention. As pointed out and as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dunlop Rubber Co. (I) Ltd. (supra) uniformity is not the sole criteria. In an organisation which may have different offices in different regions, what the Tribunal has to consider, even where the demand is raised by minority of workmen, is the system prevailing in the region and further considering the test as laid down in Mazgaon Dock Ltd. (supra) and Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha (supra). The test is, does it have the effect of adversely affecting the existing condition of the workers in terms of wages drawn, then the Tribunal should not interfere unless there are compelling reasons. The Industrial Tribunal has held that the petitioner have been unable to give any reason justifying the changes. That finding cannot be faulted. To that extent in my view rejection of Demand Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 cannot be sustained.
Insofar as the demand pertaining to gratuity is concerned, the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the Union and accordingly has rejected the contention on behalf of the employer. The Union is aggrieved by the gratuity scheme as awarded by the Tribunal and has challenged the same. I do not propose to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal insofar as rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein is concerned, more so considering the wages prevailing in the petitioner''s company and the subsequent amendments to the Payment of Gratuity Act. I, therefore, find no error of jurisdiction or any error apparent on the face of the record to interfere with that part of the Award.
Similarly, insofar as the efficiency bar is concerned, the Tribunal has given reasons as to why the demand as raised by the Company cannot be considered. The reasons given cannot be said to be reasons which are not germane or which have no nexus with the grant of annual increment. In these circumstances also I find that the Tribunal has not committed any error of jurisdiction nor does the Award disclose any error of law apparent on the face of the record.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merits in this petition and accordingly Rule discharged.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
P.A. to give ordinary copy of this order to the parties concerned.