Alagiriswami, J. - (1.) The appellant, the National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., was engaged in execution of two projects, Chandan Dam Project and the Gandak Dam Project. On 31st January 1967 the N. P. C. C. Workers' Union of the Chandan Dam Project gave a notice of strike and on 1st April 1967 the Labour Union of the Gandak Dam Project gave a similar notice. These notices were accompanied by a charter of demands which are practically the same in both cases. Thereafter a settlement was arrived at with both these Unions on 11-4-1967 in the presence of the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, the terms of which were also similar. By that settlement certain questions were agreed to be referred to arbitration and those questions are found in paragraph 4 of both the settlements, The dispute with both the Labour Unions was accordingly referred to the arbitration of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. Bihar, Patna on 3rd May, 1967. The arbitrator's award was sought to be quashed by means of a writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court of Patna. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed. the writ petition except in respect of one point which is not important for the purpose of this appeal. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Patna High court by way of certificate granted by the High Court.
(2.) The points canvassed before us were regarding the wages of the muster-roll workmen and the project allowance for them. In the settlements referred to earlier the relevant portion regarding these workmen reads thus: "Keeping in view the drought conditions in the State and consequential steep rise in prices of commodities since the wages of workmen in this unit were increased in the year 1966, management agrees that no muster roll workmen will be paid less than Rs 3/- per day with effect from 11-4-1967. Management agrees to the flat increase of 0.50 paise per day per workman in the daily wage rates of such muster roll workmen who are getting Rs. 3/- or above." In these two projects there were three categories of workmen (1) regular staff, (2) work-charged staff, and (3) casual labour (borne on muster-roll). The regular staff consisted of engineering, administrative, accounts and finance, supervisory as well as non-supervisory personnel. The work-charged staff was monthly paid and was of two categories, that is, civil and mechanical. The casual workman was one whose employment was of an occasional or casual nature and was borne on the muster-roll on daily wages for such purpose. In fact the charter of demands by both the Labour Unions also makes clear this distinction between muster-roll employees, who are called daily rated workmen, and work charged employees and regular employees. The demand in respect of the muster roll employees as far as the wages are concerned was that they should be given a minimum of Rs. 4/- per day. Another demand was that the muster roll employees who had served for 240 days must be brought on work charged cadre. By the settlements already referred to the wages of the muster roll workmen were raised to a minimum of Rs. 3/- and an increase of 50 paise in the case of persons who were getting Rs. 3/- or more earlier. In respect of them there had also been earlier settlement in 1966. When, therefore, in Clause 4 of the settlement it was agreed that certain questions were to be referred to arbitration that can only be in reference to workmen other than muster-roll workmen. That clause in the settlement reads thus: " 4. Parties agree for reference of the demands regarding revision of pay scales, introducing of C. P. F. Scheme, house rent allowance, dearness allowance, project allowance, travelling allowance and security of service of workmen to arbitration for which they are submitting separate petitions as required under the Industrial Disputes Act and the rules framed thereunder to the State Government. The Arbitrator will be requested to give his award within two months." As the revision of pay scales of the muster roll workmen was already covered by the settlement the revision of their pay scales was not one of the points agreed to be referred to arbitration. Nor can the question of introducing C. P. F. scheme, house rent allowance, dearness allowance, project allowance, travelling allowance arise in their case. The daily rated or muster roll workmen would be local recruited workmen.
(3.) What the Industrial Tribunal has done is to allow a 25 per cent increase in the wages of all labour including muster roll workmen. The result was that the muster roll workmen got a double advantage, that is, the increase which they secured as a result of settlement and the further increase of 25 per cent granted by the Tribunal whereas the other categories of workmen got only the 25 per cent increase. It appears that before this settlement the daily rates of muster roll workmen were Rs.1.75 in Chandan Dam and Rs. 2.25 in Gandak Dam. As a result of the settlement they got more than 40 per cent which was demanded in the charter of demands in the strike notice in respect of other categories. In that charter what was demanded for muster roll workmen was a minimum daily wage of Rs. 4/-. In any case these things make it absolutely clear that the question of pay scales of the muster roll workmen was decided as a result of the settlement and that was not one of the questions referred to the arbitrator. The Industrial Tribunal was therefore acting beyond its jurisdiction in allowing a 25 per cent increase in the wages of the muster roll workmen. The only reason the Industrial Tribunal has given for holding that the wages of the muster roll workmen was also a matter referred to it is that the point under reference by itself does not exclude muster roll workmen and that it clearly mentions that the parties had agreed that the demands regarding revision of pay scales etc. of the workmen should be referred to arbitration and no exception has been made against the muster roll workmen. As we have already pointed out this is wrong reading of the reference. That clause in the settlement should be read along with the rest of the settlement and charter of demands and if that had been done there would have been no room for this misunderstanding;