IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED G B CHITNIS Vs. WORKMEN:IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LTD
LAWS(SC)-1960-11-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on November 14,1960

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE,G.B.CHITNIS Appellant
VERSUS
WORKMEN,IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. VENUGOPALAN [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
G M TALANG VS. SHAW WALLACE AND CO LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1964-3-48] [RELIED ON]
K D PATEL VS. G S F C [LAWS(GJH)-2005-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. NERGESH MEERZA [LAWS(SC)-1981-8-25] [RELIED ON]
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(GJH)-1991-9-28] [REFERRED]
GABRIEL EMPLOYEES UNION VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD [LAWS(HPH)-2007-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REFINING DIVISION BOMBAY VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1983-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT JAGANNATH GHODKE VS. COMMISSIONER FOR CO OPERATION and REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(BOM)-2003-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
K K GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1993-3-12] [REFERRED]
SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF INDIA, LIMITED VS. BURMAH-THEIR WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1968-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
ITI LTD VS. VENUGOPALAN N [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
TTK HEALTHCARE LIMITED VS. PRESIDENT [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-1457] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)These two cross appeals are directed against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in respect of two of the demands referred to it for adjudication. Five industrial demands were made against the Imperial Chemical Industrial (India) Private Limited, Bombay (hereafter called the company), by its workmen (hereafter called the workmen), and they were referred for industrial adjudication by the Government of Bombay under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947). These demands were considered by the Industrial Tribunal in the light of the evidence adduced before it by the respective parties and decided on the merits. Two of the demands which are the subject matter of the present appeals were demands Nos. 3 and 5. By demand No. 3 the workmen claimed that for the work done on Sundays and holidays observed by the company clerical as well as service staff shall be paid twice the employee's normal rate of pay consisting of basic salary's dearness allowance and other allowances if any. Demand No. 5 made by the workmen was that all employees of the company shall not be compulsorily retired by the company before they attain the age of 60 except in case of voluntary retirement by the employees concerned. The company is an All Indian concern and has its branches at several places in India. At its Bombay office 1,400 employees are engaged by the company; out of these 800 employees are concerned with the present dispute; 600 out of them belong to the clerical cadre whereas the remaining 200 belong to the cadre of the subordinate staff.
(2.)The two demands set out above were disputed by the company. In regard to demand No. 3 the company, stated that it paid Sunday or holiday work allowance in terms of a earlier award known as the Naik Award, and since no change of circumstances had taken place since the making of the said award a revision in he matter of the said payment was not justified. The company further claimed that the allowance paid by it to its employees was reasonable, fair and adequate. In regard to demand No. 5 the company pleaded that since 1950 the company had fixed the retirement age at 55 for all its employees throughout India, and that any revision made in that behalf so far as the employees in the present dispute are concerned would have serious repercussions in the other branches of the company. It was also urged that the age of retirement fixed by the company was fair and reasonable. The company drew attention to the fact that it pays a generous Provident Fund of 10 per cent contribution from either side which does not exist in many other concerns in Bombay.
(3.)In regard to demand No. 3 the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of the workmen and has directed the company to give to the employees concerned, for work done on Sundays and holidays, half of a day's total salary and dearness allowance (calculated by dividing the total of the basic wage, special allowance and dearness allowance for the month by 30). In regard to the work done by the employees on festival holidays the Tribunal has purported to order that the allowance in that half should be a day's salary and dearness allowance calculated as above, but employees will not be entitled to a substituted holiday. It is this part of the award that is challenged by the workmen in their appeal.
;


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