P.JAGANMOHAN REDDY - (1.) THESE three Appeals are by the Workmen of the three Respondent Companies respectively - Civil Appeal No. 1239 of 1966 is against Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 1966 is against Greaves Cotton and Crompton Parkinson Pvt. Ltd., (later amalgamated in 1966 and a new Company formed as Crompton Greaves Ltd.,), and Civil Appeal No. 1241 of 1966 is against Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd.
(2.) ON the 29/04/1958 a charter of demands was presented by the Workmen through their Trade Union Greaves Cotton and allied Companies employees' Union to the Respondents in the above three Appeals and to Ruston and Hornby India Pvt. Ltd. These demands were in respect of the wage scale, dearness allowance, leave gratuity etc. After the conciliation proceedings under sub-sec. (4) of S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') had failed the disputes in respect of the aforesaid matters were ultimately referred by the Maharashtra Government to Shri P. D. Sawarkar for adjudication under Sec. 10 (1) (d) read with S. 12 (5) of the Act. In respect of demands made against Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., the reference was made on 8-4-59 and 24-12-59; against Greaves Cotton and Crompton Parkinson Pvt. Ltd., on 30-5-59 and 24-12-59 and that against Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd., on 8-6-59 and 9-1-60 respectively. We are here not concerned with the other references. By an Award dated 3rd June, 15th and 16/06/1960 the Sawarkar Tribunal revised the wage scales and dearness allowance of all workmen employed by those Companies. Ruston and Hornby India Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the Awards to this Court which by a common judgment dated 14/11/1963 held that the wage scale and dearness allowance fixed by the Industrial Tribunal for the clerical and subordinate staff did not require any interference and to that extent dismissed the appeal. It however set aside the wage scale and dearness allowance fixed for factory workmen and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh fixation of wage scale and dearness allowance with these observation: "We allow the appeal with respect to the factory workmen and send the case back to the Tribunal for fixing the wage structure including basic wages and dearness allowance and for granting adjustments in the light of the observations by us. The new Award pursuant to this Award will come into force from the same date namely 1/04/1959". When the references were taken up by the Tribunal on remand the parties agreed that in view of the decision of this Court certain references stood finally disposed of namely references dated 24-12-59 by the workmen in Greaves Cotton and Co., Ltd., and in Greaves Cotton and Crompton Parkinson Pvt. Ltd. and that dated 9-1-1960 by the workmen of Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd. The other three which were also held to be finally disposed of were against the workmen of Ruston and Hornby India Pvt. Ltd., with which we are not concerned in this Appeal. The parties however, agreed that only three references dated 8-4-59, 30-5-59 and 8-6-59 by Workmen against Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., Greaves Cotton and Crompton Parkinson Pvt. Ltd., and Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd., survive. During the proceedings before the Tribunal two questions were raised: 1) Whether the Supreme Court remanded the matter for consideration of the dispute in respect of certain categories of employees including those of the Supervisors; and 2) Whether it was open to the Respondents to claim fixation of service conditions on the basis of individual unit. On behalf of the employees it was contended that the dispute regarding the Foremen or Supervisors who were included in the term subordinate staff was concluded by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in as much as it had dismissed the Appeal in respect of Clerical and subordinate staff. The employers on the other hand contended that the reference was in respect of the six categories of Workmen specified in the Supreme Court Judgment which included supervisors. Shri Athalye who was the then Judge of the Industrial Court after hearing the parties made an order on 14/07/1964, inter alia holding: 1) That the companies were precluded from agitating that wage scales in the different factories should be fixed on the basis of individual units; and 2) that the Sawarkar Award was set aside by this Court in respect of all workmen except those who could be properly classified as office staff. After this order the Respondents were asked to file statements regarding comparative wage scales of Supervisors, in their concerns as well as in other concerns. These statements were filed without prejudice to their contention that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix wage scale in respect of Supervisory staff. The documents filed on behalf of the third Respondent namely Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd., showed that it did not employ any staff in the supervisory grade. Thereafter the references were heard by Shri Paralkar who had succeeded Shri Athalye as Judge, Industrial Tribunal. It was contended before him that the Foremen (Supervisors) were not workmen within the definition given in the Act and that no wage scales in respect of the Supervisors in the Respondent Companies should be fixed. The stand taken by the Appellant was that it was not open to the respondent companies to raise the question whether the Supervisors were workmen within the meaning of the Act as it did not arise on the remand orders made by this Court. In the alternative it was contended that many Supervisory workmen, concerned in the dispute were drawing a totally salary below Rs. 500.00 and that even if everyone of them was promoted from the category of supervisors or for the sake of argument it was held that Foremen and Supervisory staff were not workmen within the meaning of the Act, the Workmen had a right to raise a dispute regarding wage scale and dearness allowance of the Supervisory staff because they have a community of interest with them. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in respect of wage scales and dearness allowance of the Supervisory staff. The Appellant also contended on behalf of the Workmen that the only question that was pending before the Tribunal was to fix wages for factory workmen and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide at that stage as to which category the workmen belonged. The Tribunal by its Award of the 1/10/1965 held after hearing the parties that Supervisors were not workmen within the meaning of the Act and that the claim for revision of wage scale and dearness allowance payable to them was in that view rejected. Against this Award the above appeals were filed by special leave granted by this Court confined only to the point whether the decision contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Award was correct.
(3.) AT the outset it was conceded by the Parties that Civil Appeal No. 1241 of 1966 by the Workmen against the Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd. did not survive because there are no persons working in the Supervisory capacities and drawing less than Rs. 500.00 being the two conditions requisite under Section 2 (s) (iv) of the Act to be a 'Workman' the non-fulfilment of which would deprive the Tribunal of its jurisdiction to determine the dispute; and therefore the appeal has to be dismissed. Even in respect of the other two Appeals the learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that there are no workmen working in the Supervisory capacities and drawing less than Rs. 500.00 in the other two Undertakings in respect of which the Appeals have been filed and consequently they should also be dismissed. We shall, however, deal with this submission later on.;