GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) AN industrial dispute in regard to the revision of the wage-structure which was raised against the appellant, the Indian Hume Pipe Company, Ltd., by the respondents, its workmen, was referred for adjudication by the Government of Bombay under S.12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), on 30 October, 1956. On this reference, an award was made on 22 July, 1960. This award is challenged by the appellant in its Appeal No. 669 of 1962 which has been brought to this Court by special leave. After the award was pronounced, the appellant applied under rule 31 of the rules framed under the Act for correction of certain clerical errors on 16 September, 1960. The tribunal held that the applications was incompetent under rule 31 and so the said application was dismissed on 26 April, 1961. Against this order of dismissal, the appellant has become to this Court by special leave in Appeal No. 670 of 1962. Since the appellant is challenging the award on the grounds which it had set forth in its application under rule 31, it is unnecessary to deal with its Appeal No. 670 of 1962. Our decision in Appeal No. 669 of 1962 will automatically govern the decision in Appeal No. 670 of 1962.
(2.) THE appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It carries on the business of manufacturing and selling Hume pipe and allied products and owns as many as 57 factories in India, including the factory at Wadala, Bombay. The respondents are the daily-rated workmen employed by the appellant at its factory at Wadala. It appears that in 1950 the respondents made various demands on the appellant and the same were referred for adjudication by the Government of Bombay on 29 May, 1950. Amongst the demands made by the respondents was included a demand for wages. The respondents had claimed that the occupations of the employees of the appellant should be classified into four categories, viz., unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and highly skilled. The industrial tribunal, which heard the said dispute, decided that there should be only three categories of the employees, viz., unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled. It came to the conclusion that in regard to employees who claimed to be skilled in the higher degree, provision should be made for giving them adequately high salaries. In fact, the categorization of the employees into three categories was substantially achieved by consent between the parties. Consistently with the said classification, wage-structure was devised by the industrial tribunal and ultimately its award was pronounced on 21 August 1951.Subsequently, in 1956, the respondents made a fresh demand in respect of the wage-structure and contended that the wage-structure needed drastic revision, having regard to the fact that the cost of living had increased in the meanwhile. By demand 1 the respondents set out the manner in which the wage-structure should be revised and they specified eight categories of employees in that behalf. As we have already indicated, on the earlier occasion the parties had agreed that the respondents should be classified into three categories and had further consented to the inclusion of 12 categories in classification A, 22 categories in classification B and 13 categories in classification C, classification A, B, and C being unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled respondents. Even so, in 1956 the respondents seemed to demand that the said classifications should be revised and the wage up-graded. It also appears that when the matter was discussed before the tribunal at the present enquiry and more particularly when the tribunal visited the factory in the company of the appellant's lawyer Sri Mehta and the respondent's representative Sri Ram Desai, both of them agreed "that the nature of skill of the various categories would be as per the first award." The tribunal then inspected the factory and ultimately made its award. During the course of its inspection, the tribunal found that there were no designations like the assistant mason, assistant fitter, assistant moulder and others specified by it in Para. 16 of its award, and so, it created categories of certain assistants in respect of the job done by mason, fitter, moulder, hand welder, turner, shaper, transformer maker, carpenter, machine welder and machine driver. The tribunal then but the different employees in the three respective categories and revised the wages payable to them. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court.Sri Shroff for the appellant has attacked the award only on one narrow point. He contends that the tribunal has committed an obvious error in changing the classes of four categories of employees, namely, mason, welder, carpenter and moulder. He also argues that in creating the post of an assistant moulder, the tribunal has overlooked that fact that there is nobody who is known as assistant moulder in the appellant's concern and who satisfies the requirements of the said office. In regard to the first four categories of employees, it is not disputed that the present award has made a substantial change and has differed from the earlier award. Under the earlier award, masons other than those who were skilled were placed in the category of semi-skilled and only masons who worked on Hume steel special were put under the category of skilled employees. Indu Chottu was treated as a special case and was put under the skilled category. Under the present award all masons are put in the skilled category. In regard to the welder, it was only welders who were working in H. S. S. and W. shops that were skilled under the earlier award and the rest were semi-skilled. Under the present award, hand welders, machine welders and gas welders are all put in the skilled category. Carpenters other than skilled were treated as semi-skilled under the earlier award and carpenters, excepting workshop stores, were treated as skilled. Under the present award, all carpenters are put under the category of skilled workmen. Moulder under the earlier award was not under semi-skilled category whether it was a case of a moulder H.P., R.C.C., pole lining and our-coating. A mazdoor working under a moulder was treated as unskilled. Under the present award, all moulders are put under the skilled category. Sri Shroff contends that in changing the categories of these workmen, the tribunal through error has failed to notice the fact that it was common ground between the parties before the tribunal that the classification and the categories prescribed by the earlier award had not to be changed and the only question which the tribunal was asked to decide in the present proceedings was one in regard to the revision of wages payable to the employees in the respective categories and classes.It seems to us that the grievance made by the appellant is well-founded. There is no doubt that before the tribunal, parties had agreed to take the skill of the various categories as it was prescribed by the earlier award and it has in fact observed that in view of the admission of the parties regarding classification. "the categories and classification of the respective employees had to be take as it was specified in annexure A, " annexure A containing the categories and the classification of the respective employees made in the earlier award. It is to be regretted that the tribunal proceeded to change the classification in respect of four categories of employees to which we have just referred, overlooking the fact that by virtue of the agreement between the parties, it was not competent to the tribunal to adopt such a course.
(3.) SRI Sowani for the respondents attempted to argue that the tribunal has created a category of assistants, and so, it thought that it would be anomalous to treat an assistant mason, an assistant welder, an assistant carpenter or an assistant moulder as semi-skilled, and the mason, the welder, the carpenter and the moulder also as semi-skilled. That may perhaps explain why the tribunal changed the classification in respect of the four categories of employees. In the present appeal, no grievance is made by the appellant in regard to the creation of certain assistant in the category of semi-skilled employees, and so, we are not called upon to consider whether the tribunal could have created this class of assistants, but it seems to us that the tribunal was not justified in promoting the four categories of employees into the skilled class in a manner which was inconsistent with the classification adopted by the earlier award. That is why we must hold that in regard to the mason, the welder the carpenter and the moulder, the classification must be deemed to be the same as was adopted by the earlier award. In regard to the assistant moulder, the appellant's grievance is that there is no person who answers the description of that office. We propose to express no opinion on this part of the appellant's case. If there are employees who can be regarded as assistant moulders under the award, their rights will not be affected, because the appellant has not seriously contended that the tribunal was not competent to create a class of assistant moulders, just as it has not been argued that a class of assistant masons, assistant fitter and other assistants could not have been created.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the classification adopted by the tribunal in respect of the mason, the welder, the carpenter and the moulder is set aside and it its place is substituted the classification adopted by the earlier award (annexure A). Under the circumstances of this case, there would be no order as to costs.;