LAKSHMI MILLS COMPANY LIMITED Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the application of respondent 2 under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the labour court, Coimbatore, found that he was a fitter from January 1956, among the staff of the petitioner, and that, as such, he was entitled to salary on the scales Rs. 44-11-0 to Rs. 64-11-0 and to his first increment on 1 October 1958, and computed his total benefit upto 30 September 1959 at Rs. 316-8-0. This petition by the management under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash that order. The main contention of the petitioner, which appears to be one of its objections before the labour court but the not particularly decided by that Court, is that the question, whether respondent 2 was a fitter, as claimed by him or only a fitter-helper, as the management would have it, was not within the purview of the application under S. 33C(2) of the Act. Apparently, the labour court proceeded on the view it had jurisdiction to decide the issue The respondent 2 was entertained by the petitioner, which is a textile mill at Coimbatore, as a temporary worker on 17 January 1954, and was made permanent from 1 January 1956 in the mechanical shop department. Before that time he was in the lowest category of workers classified as unskilled workers and was drawing a basic wage of Rs. 26 per month.

(2.) IN about January 1956, he was directed to work in the reeling section, where the conversion of hand reels into power reels was going on, was designated as a power reel fitter. After the process of conversion was completed, he was transferred on 1 April 1957 back to the mechanical shop department. His basic wage was enhanced to Rs. 32-8-0 with effect from 1 February, 1957, and he continued to receive wages on that scale until 3 October 1959, when he made the present claim as a fitter under S. 33C(2) claiming wages at Rs. 50-11-0 per month on basis of an award in INdustrial Dispute No. 65 of 1958. Prior to that award, some of the textile mills of which the petitioner was one, and their workmen had, in relation to certain disputes, reached a settlement on 25 September 1956, the terms of which appear in a memorandum signed by the parties. Clause 15 of this memorandum stated that the wages and work-loads with regard to workers in the electrical and mechanical shop determents and automatic loom sections of the relative mills would be discussed between parties and the determination would be added to from part of the settlement. Failing to reach an agreement, this question was referred to for adjudication which ended in the said award published in the gazette, dated 18 February 1959. This award fixed the scale of pay for a fitter at Rs. 44-11-0 with effect from 1 October 1957. There is no dispute that if respondent 2 were a fitter, he would be entitled to wages at that rate. But according to the management, respondent 2 was never a fitter but only a fitter-helper ever during the time of the conversion of the hand reels into power reels, and notwithstanding his designation as a power reel fitter, the nature of work he did, continued to be the same and his designation was altered into a fitter-helper even from 1 April 1957.

(3.) THAT, of course, was a case where, in an application under that section, the labour court wads called upon to compute the benefit namely, the good attendance bonus embodied in an award, made not under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act but the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, and the labour court dismissed the application as not maintainable on the view which I have upheld. The principle of this decision, namely, that a benefit not comprehended by or included in any settlement or award under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, or not within the purview of the provisions of Chap. VA of the same Act, does not fall within the ambit of Sub-sec. (2) of S. 33C is equally applicable to the instant case. In support of this view of the sub-section, the learned Advocate-General who in the course of the hearing of the petition, intervened to assist the Court, submits, I think, very rightly, that having regard to the entire purpose of S. 33C, in the context of the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, Sub-sec. (2) cannot be read as of a wider scope than that of Sub-sec. (1) of S. 33C. The purpose of the section, which in 1956 replaced S. 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, is to provide for a speedy, effective and inexpensive remedy for a workman to recover, in a summary proceeding, from his employer any money which by an adjudication under an award or an agreement under a settlement, or by virtue of the provisions of Chap. VA, he is entitled to. But if what he is entitled to is not expressed in terms of money, as for instance, Deepavali bonus, or good attendance bonus, sick leave allowance and the like, it becomes necessary to have the benefit translated into terms of money for the purpose of enabling a workman to realized the same by levying execution.