RIDDLE SAWYER LIMITED Vs. CHEMICAL EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the Petitioner impugns the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 29 -1 -1999 in Reference (TT) No. 31 of 1999. This award is in respect of general demands such as payscales to be paid, classification, service increments. Dearness Allowances, Leave, etc., payable to the workmen employed in the Administrative Section of the Petitioner -Company and the workmen employed in the factory. The Award has been principally assailed on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the principles as delineated by the Apex Court in the matter of wage fixation and that while considering the demands of the workmen, the Tribunal has ignored the principle of industry -cum -region and has not considered the total wage packet which would be payable to the workmen. The other contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Award has been made applicable from the date of the demand, that is, January 1994 and this has caused a tremendous burden on the Petitioner and that, therefore, the Award is required to be quashed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:

(3.) MR . Rele, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has, in my opinion, raised a very technical issue. He contends that there is no doubt that the Petitioner has financial capability of bearing the burden cast upon it by the award of the Tribunal. He further contends that there is also no dispute that there has been an increase in the cost of living index from the date when the period of the last settlement expired to the date when the present award was made. He does not dispute that there has been a practice in the Petitioner -Company to have the conditions of service of the workmen revised every three years by settlement and that from 1993 when the last settlement expired till 1997, there had been no wage revision in the Petitioner Company. He submits that the existence of any or all these criteria may be good enough reason for a wage rise to the workmen. But such a wage rise has to be awarded in accordance with the principles of industrial adjudication and wage fixation as laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments. The learned Counsel urges that assuming all the three criteria are present in this case it was incumbent on the Tribunal to consider the industry -cum -region formula as set out in various judgments of the Supreme Court and also to consider the total wage packet which the workmen would draw as a result of the revision in wages. According to the learned Counsel, there is no justification for awarding a wage rise with retrospective effect from 1 -1 -1994 when yearly increments were paid to the workmen and variable Dearness Allowance was also paid to the workmen. He submits that this payment which was made has taken care of the gap in their wages from 1993 to 1997 and, therefore, making the award retrospectively applicable was illegal.