AMBICA MILLS CO LIMITED Vs. S B BHATT
LAWS(SC)-1960-12-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on December 12,1960

AMBICA MILLS COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
S.B.BHATT Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

K M SHANMUGAM PROPRIETOR K M S TRANSPORT TANJORE MADRAS STATE VS. S R V PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1963-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDERA SHARMA VS. DELHI LIBRARY BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-1969-11-11] [REFERRED]
TRILOCHAN JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1983-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
DHRANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD VS. I G THAKORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(GJH)-1963-2-7] [REFERRED]
MAHILA SAHKARI UDYOG MANDIR VS. BAPUBHAI MOHANBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-1973-4-10] [REFERRED]
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. P R DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-1993-12-33] [REFERRED]
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT N RLY ALLAHABAD VS. NAND LAL DUBEY [LAWS(ALL)-1961-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-1968-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
BECHU LAL VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-1991-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ KISHORE TEWARI VS. J B IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES 43 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1996-5-88] [REFERRED TO]
D C M LIMITED VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT [LAWS(ALL)-1996-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. NIRMAL SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGMENT OF TINGALIBAM TEA ESTATE VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT DIBARUNGARH [LAWS(GAU)-1998-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
SWADESHI COTTON MILLS UNIT OF NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION U P LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER KEDAR NATH DIXIT [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-187] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING MEMBER NIRMAL INDUSTRIES KHAIRATABAD HYDERABAD VS. NASEEMUDDING [LAWS(APH)-1965-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD VS. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2007-2-151] [REFERRED TO]
CHENNAKESAVULU NAIDU VS. PADMANABHA NAIDU [LAWS(APH)-1980-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
P MANOHAR REDDY VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 53 OF THE A P SHOP AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(APH)-2007-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
AIR CARRYING CORPN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(CAL)-1955-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
DURGASREE STORES VS. BOARD OF REVENUE WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1962-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PRATAP RAMACHANDRA VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(CAL)-1964-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF AND VS. BENGAL PAPER MILLS CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1968-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRA BANK OF INDIA LIMITED VS. P S RAJAGOPALAN [LAWS(SC)-1963-4-40] [REFERRED]
WORKMEN OF BENGAL PAPER MILLS CO LTD VS. BENGAL PAPER MILLS CO LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-1968-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM CONSOLIDATED TEA ESTATES LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER A WARD [LAWS(CAL)-1969-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
IMPERIAL TOBACCO CO OF INDIA LTD VS. AUTHORITY APPOINTED [LAWS(CAL)-1970-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KAMAL PRASANNA ROY VS. MAURICE HYAM [LAWS(CAL)-1972-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRANATH NATH BRAHMACHARI VS. TELECOM FACTORY [LAWS(CAL)-1986-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU TEA PLANTATION CORPORATION LTD VS. RAMAIAH [LAWS(MAD)-1989-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
SAVATRAM RAMPRASAD MILLS CO LTD VS. BALIRAM UKANDAJI [LAWS(BOM)-1962-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
PAYMENT OF WAGES INSPECTOR UJJAIN VS. SURAJMAL MEHTA DIRECTOR THE BARNAGAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND INDUSTRIAL CO LTD [LAWS(SC)-1968-12-17] [REFERRED]
BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST VS. PALAT LALL [LAWS(SC)-1970-10-33] [DISTINGUISHED]
MUNICIPAL BOARD SAHARANPUR VS. IMPERIAL TOBACCO OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1998-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT BANK WORKERS UNION VS. JAMNAGAR DISTRICT CO OP BANK LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1977-4-3] [REFERRED]
GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD VS. ASHOK K JHA [LAWS(GJH)-2008-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN FARMERS FERTILISER COOPERATIVE LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-1991-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHARAN TIWARI VS. DIST JUDGE [LAWS(MPH)-1961-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANSINGH JUGRAJSINGH VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(MPH)-1961-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH LAXMAN SINGHJI RAJPUT VS. BHAWARLAL NAHTA [LAWS(MPH)-1962-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL TIWARI VS. SUPERINTENDENT AND MANAGER THE BENGAL NAGPUR COTTON [LAWS(MPH)-1962-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJMAL MEHTA VS. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT [LAWS(MPH)-1964-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN TULSIRAM VS. DAYALAL MEGHJI AND CO BADASHAHI BIDI WORKS [LAWS(MPH)-1966-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
M P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN BHOPAL VS. INDUSTRIAL COURT M P [LAWS(MPH)-1976-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ISMAIL MOHD HUSSAIN VS. PRECIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MPH)-1979-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
MARY CHACKO VS. OUSEPH [LAWS(KER)-1961-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
WEST COAST MOTORS VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ERNAKULAM [LAWS(KER)-1961-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
MANNARKATT UNION MOTOR SERVICE MANNARKATT VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALGHAT [LAWS(KER)-1962-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
P C ADHIKARI VS. MANAGER THE BRAITE WAITE BURN AND JOSSOP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1984-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MITHALAL ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-1984-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE VS. DISTRICT MUNSIFF KANJIRAPPALLY [LAWS(KER)-1965-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN HARI KUMBHARE VS. P K PORWAL [LAWS(BOM)-1967-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIM HAJUBHAI SHAUKH A VS. SHIRAJ KASIM NADAR [LAWS(BOM)-1968-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
NANDLAL VS. MANGIBAI [LAWS(MPH)-2005-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
THERAPEUTICS CHEMICALS RESEARCH CORPORATION VS. JUSTICE R D TULPULE PRESIDING OFFICER C I T [LAWS(BOM)-1987-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED BAMANGAWAN AND KYMORE MINES KYMORE MP VS. G C AGARWALA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MPH)-1971-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT [LAWS(KER)-2002-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER U P S B CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CHRISTOPHER FONSECA [LAWS(BOM)-1998-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER U P S B CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CHRISTOPHER FONSECA [LAWS(BOM)-1998-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
P N BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
INDER SINGH VS. LABOUR COURT JULLUNDUR [LAWS(P&H)-1968-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER W R AJMER VS. BRIJ KISHORE KHANNA [LAWS(RAJ)-1962-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
GURU NANAK UNIVERSITY VS. IQBAL KAUR SANDHU [LAWS(P&H)-1975-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAO BAHADUR MOOLCHAND NEMICHAND VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(RAJ)-1965-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. LABOUR COURT RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1965-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
RANCHI DISTRICT CADRE CO OP SOC LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(PAT)-1987-7-5] [REFERRER TO AIR 1961 SC 970. (2) 53 BOM. LR 674 : AIR 1961 BOM 423.]
SINGHAL AND CO VS. HEM RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-1996-1-79] [REFERRED TO]
MAURAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(P&H)-1998-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT RAM RAMDEO VS. ASSISTANT ENGINEER REC [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL VS. SUPERINTENDENT GOVERNMENT PRESS [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
ADMINISTRATOR KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI VS. GAURI SHANKER [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
PROJECT MANAGER RAJASTHAN STATE TUNGSTEN VS. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGG ZHAKAM PROJECT VS. RAMESH CHANDRA [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. LALA RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD AJMERA VS. DHARMENDRA BHATNAGAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
ALOYS WOBBEN ARGESTRASSE VS. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
KHASIAT ALI CHOUDHURY VS. ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT GAUHATI [LAWS(GAU)-1982-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
Manager, M/s. Ibrahimji Isabhai VS. Authority, under Minimum Wages Act [LAWS(MPH)-1995-3-100] [REFERRED TO]
BELA RANI BHATTCHARYYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
C.S. PARAMESWARAN VS. AUTHORITY [LAWS(BOM)-1968-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
PERUNGOTTUKURISSI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. BALAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-1981-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN SINGH VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(MPH)-1961-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
DHAN SINGH VS. LAKSHMI NARAIN AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1964-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHUWAN PARKASH NAYYAR VS. MEHAR SINGH CHADDAH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1962-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
SAMADH PARSHOTAM DASS ALIAS JOWAND SINGH VS. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1962-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. JAMI SURYA RAO [LAWS(ORI)-1975-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTA KUMAR NANDA VS. GOVINDA PRASAD ACHARYA [LAWS(ORI)-1963-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, DELHI. DIVISION NORTHERN RAILWAY, ETC. VS. JASWANT RAI ETC. [LAWS(P&H)-1972-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL PRASANNA ROY VS. MAURICE HYAM [LAWS(CAL)-1972-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-1990-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BEHARI LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1971-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL AND OTHERS VS. DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, PRATAPGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1974-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
JAGGANNATH VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY, NEW DELHI [LAWS(ALL)-1974-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALPAIGURI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. VS. THE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1984-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION VS. BACHAN SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MOOL SINGH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHHAGAN [LAWS(ALL)-1973-3-51] [REFERRED]
DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, DELHI DIVISION, NORTHERN RLY, N DELHI VS. JASWANT RAI [LAWS(P&H)-1972-4-61] [REFERRED]
MOHAMMED AZHARUDDIN VS. G VIVEKANAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA PRASAD AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2019-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
ALCHEMIST LTD. VS. DINESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH SUYAL VS. BOBY RAY [LAWS(UTN)-2019-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
VISHESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(UTN)-2019-8-100] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR DAS [LAWS(UTN)-2019-5-160] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ANR VS. ANTHONY IAWPHNIAW [LAWS(MEGH)-2020-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANTHONY IAWPHNIAW [LAWS(MEGH)-2018-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2020-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. RAMESH CHANDRA JOSHI [LAWS(UTN)-2020-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANTHONY IAWPHNIAW [LAWS(MEGH)-2020-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAJANI BHATT VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2020-2-75] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)The principle question which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision relates to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction conferred on the authority by S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act 4 of 1936) (hereafter called the Act). This question arises in this way. The appellant Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd., is a textile mill working at Ahmedabad. Three of its employees named Punamchand, Shamaldas and Vishnuprasad made an application to the authority under S. 16 of the Act and prayed for an order against the appellant to pay them their delayed wages. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the appellant disputing the validity of the respondents' claim it is necessary to set out the background of the dispute in some detail. It appears that an award called the Standardisation Award which covered the mill industry in Ahmedabad was pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal on April 21, 1948, in Industrial Reference No. 18 of 1947. This award fixed the wages for different categories of workers working in the textile mills at Ahmedabad, but left over the question of clerks for future decision. Amongst the operatives whose wages were determined by the award the case of hand-folders was specifically argued before the Industrial Tribunal. The Labour Association urged that the rate of Rs. 38-9-0 awarded to them was too low and it was pointed out on their behalf that they did the same as cut-lookers did in Bombay where a head cut-looker was given Rs. 52-and a cut-looker Rs. 42-4-0. On the other hand the mill owners contended that the rate should have been fixed at Rs. 34-2-0 instead of Rs. 36-9-0. The Tribunal found it difficult to decide the point because enough evidence had not been produced before it to show the kind of work that hand -folders were doing at Ahmedabad; that is why the Tribunal was unable to raise the wage of hand-folders to that of cut-lookers in Bombay. However, it made a significant direction in that behalf in these words:"At the same time", it was observed, "we desire to make it clear that if there are persons who are doing cut-looking as well as folding, they should be paid the rate earned by the cut-lookers in Bombay". This question has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 16 of its award.
(2.)The question of clerks, the decision of which had been adjourned by the Tribunal was later considered by it and an award pronounced in that behalf. However the said award was later terminated by the clerks in 1949, and that led to an agreement between the Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association and the Textile Labour Association in the matter of wages payable to clerks. This agreement was reached on June 22, 1949. Clauses 2 and 5 of this agreement are material for the purpose of this appeal. Let us therefore read the two clauses:
"2. That this agreement shall apply to all the Clerks employed in the local mills, i. e., persons doing clerical work, that is those who do routine work of writing, copying or making calculations and shall also include compounders and assistant compounders who are qualified and who are employed in the local mills.

5. A separate scale for those of the employees who occupy the position lower than that of a full-fledged Clerk but higher than that of an operative will be provided as under:

Rs. 40-3-70-EB-4-90-5-105.
This scale will be applicable in case of ticket-boy, ticket-checker, coupons-sellers, talley-boy, scale-boy, production-checker, thread-counter, cloth-measure or yard-counter, fine-reporter, cloth/yarn-examiner, department storeman, cut-looker and those others who have not been included above but who can properly fall under the above category."
(3.)After this agreement was thus reached persons doing the work of cut-lookers began to feel that they were entitled to the benefit of cl. 5 and some claims were put forth on that basis against the employers. Vishnuprasad and Punamchand applied before the authority (Applications Nos. 39 and 40 of 1954) and claimed delayed wages against the appellant on the ground that they were entitled to higher wages under paragraph 16 of the award in Reference No. 18 of 1947. This claim was resisted by the appellant. The appellant urged that the applications were not maintainable under the Act, that they were barred in view of an arbitration award which was then in operation and that on the merits the applicants were not doing the work of cut-looking. All these contentions were rejected by the authority. It examined the duties performed by the applicants, and it came to the conclusion that both the applicants were folders doing cut-looking, and consequently they were entitled each to Rs. 42-4-0 per month; in other words, the authority came to the conclusion that the applicants properly fell under the category specified in paragraph 16 of the award referred to above and as such they were entitled to recover the difference between Rs. 36-9-0 per month which was paid to each one of them and Rs. 42-4-0 which was due to each one of them. This decision was announced on September 2, 1954.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.