Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. - (1.) WHETHER "night shift allowance" forms part of "wages" in the context of Section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the issue which crops up for decision in this appeal by special leave against the order dated October 9, 1986 of the Industrial Tribunal, Karnataka at Bangalore in Serial No. 1 of 1980 in I.D. No. 26 of 1979.
(2.) IT arises on these facts. Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore, the appellant -herein, is the "management" and the respondent Shri B. Sridhar, "workman" was in employment with the management as a bus driver. The establishment of the management, at the relevant time, had about 13,500 employees out of whom about 2,800 were females. The management provided transport facilities for picking up and dropping down its employees from and at stipulated official stops. The drivers plying buses of the establishment on a rotational basis, working on night shifts, used to get a variable night shift allowance. On May 1, 1979 the workman was detailed to work in the first shift for picking up certain employees of the second shift and general shift, and for dropping school children at various scheduled points. He was also detailed to pick up female employees, who were to report for the shift commencing from 10.30 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. from the stipulated official stops. En route the workman did not park his vehicle at one of the stipulated establishment bus stops but rather quite away from it, which caught the attention of Shri K.L. Balasubramaniam, a senior Engineer in the employment of the Management wanting to go the factory. Shri Balasubramaniam went there and in the process of boarding the bus enquired whether he could go to the factory in the same bus. He was in for a shock to see the workman indulging in sexual act with a woman in the gang way of the bus. The sudden appearance of Shri Balasubramaniam surprised the workman and he abruptly and falsely replied in the negative. The matter was reported to the high officials of the Management. He confessed his guilt before Shri M.V. Subbarayappa, Deputy Manager, Transport. The misconduct committed by the workman became the subject matter of a domestic enquiry. At the enquiry S/Shri Balasubramaniam and Subbarayappa appeared for the management and deposed to the aforesaid facts. The Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the misconduct imputed under Standing Orders 15(1)(h) and 15(1)(r) of the Standing Orders of the Company. The workman was thereafter dismissed from service with effect from December 31, 1979. On that very day, the management sought approval from the Industrial Tribunal, Karnataka at Bangalore under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of the action taken and towards meeting the requirement of the provision paid to the workman before -hand a sum of Rs. 607.90 as wages for one month.
(3.) BEFORE the Industrial Tribunal the workman filed an objection statement raising various contentions denying inter alia the allegations made against him and challenging the validity of the domestic enquiry. It somehow kept pending for over six years though under the unamended Section 32(5), it was required of the Tribunal to without delay hear the application and pass such order in relation thereto as it deemed fit. Now with effect from 21 -8 -1984, three months time limit is fixed though extendable by an order in writing. Anyway while that was in progress, he made an application on July 13, 1986 before the Tribunal seeking amendment of the objection petition enabling him to urge an additional ground to the effect that one month's wages paid to him were short by Rs. 12, the monthly sum due for night shift allowance. The additional objection was based on the premises that since the workman was ordinarily expected to work on night shift on a rotational basis as per the Standing Orders of the Company, such allowance should have formed part of the wages. On that basis it was urged that since full wages had not been paid to the workman, there was a serious infraction of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) warranting the sought for approval to be declined.;