VENKATARAMA AYYAR - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) DISPUTES having arisen between Messrs Burn and Company, Calcutta, hereinafter called the Company, and a section of their employees in Howrah Iron Works, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the government of West Bengal issued a notification on 16/12/1952 referring the same to the First Industrial tribunal for adjudication. Though there were as many as 13 items comprised in the reference, we are concerned in these appeals only with four of them, viz., (1) revision of pay of clerical and substaff, grades of sarkars and checkers, bonus and reinstatement of four employees, S. N. Chatterjee, Ashimananda Banerjee, Panchanan Rana and Joydeb Banerjee and/or payment of compensation-to them. By his award dated 24/6/1953, Shri Banerji, the Industrial tribunal, held (1) that there were no grounds for revising the scale of pay of the clerical and sub-staff; (2) that the pay of checkers should be increased and that they should be paid according to the scale as set out in his award; (3) that the profits of the Company did not warrant the grant of any bonus in addition to what had been paid by the Company; and (4) that of the four employees, Shambunath Chatterjee should be re-employed as a checker on his old pay, that Ashimananda Banerjee and Panchanan Rana should be `re-employed in posts equivalent to their own posts as new incumbents` and that Joydeb Banerjee was not entitled either to reinstatement or compensation. Against this award, the Union preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate tribunal. By its decision dated 29/4/1955 the Appellate tribunal substantially modified the award of Shri Banerji in favour of the Union it held (1) that the minimum pay of the clerical and sub-staff should be raised, and that corresponding changes should be made in the ceiling level, in the increments and in the scales of pay of other grades of the staff; (2) that the scale of pay of the sarkars and checkers should be increased and increments given as laid down in the award; that the employees should be paid a month's bonus in addition to what had been given to them; and (4) that of the employees, Shambunath Chatterjee, Ashimananda Banerjee and Panchanan Rana should not merely be re-employed but reinstated with continuity of service, and that further Shambunath Chatterjee was entitled to compensation at the rate of six months' basic wages with dearness allowance. As for Joydeb Banerjee, the Appellate tribunal held that though his reinstatement was not desirable, he was entitled to one year's basic wages with dearness allowance as compensation. Against this decision, the Company has preferred Civil Appeal No. 325 of 1955 by special leave, and the Union has likewise preferred Civil Appeal No. 174 of 1956, the leave being limited in the latter to the four points raised by the Company in its appeal. The first question relates to the increase in the minimum wages of the clerical and sub-staff. For a correct understanding of the true position, it is necessary to refer to the facts which form the background of the present dispute. In 1946, the Bengal chamber of Commerce took up the question of fixing, suitably to the changed conditions brought about by World War II, wages and other terms of service of the employees in industrial concerns, and framed a scheme classifying them under different categories, and fixing scales of pay and dearness allowance for the several categories, and that was brought into force in the Company on 1/10/1946. Under this scheme, the scale of pay for the lower categories of employees, with whom we are concerned in these appeals, was as follows: JUDGEMENT_38_AIR(SC)_1957Html1.htm Disputes then arose between Engineering Firms in the State of West Bengal and their employees as regards fixation of grades, wages and dearness allowance, and by a notification dated 31/10/1947 the government referred them to the adjudication of the First Engineering tribunal. The appellant Company and its workmen were parties to the proceedings but not the present Union, which was composed of the clerical and sub-staff. On 30/6/1948 the tribunal passed an award, the terms whereof were, in general, less favourable to the employees than those fixed by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and adopted by the Company on 1/10/1946.
(3.) WHILE the proceedings were, pending before the Engineering tribunal, disputes arose between-various Mercantile Firms in Calcutta and their employees as regards wages, dearness allowance and other terms of service, and by notification dated 17/1/1948 the government of West Bengal referred them to the adjudication of another tribunal, called the Mercantile tribunal. This tribunal pronounced its award on 26/8/1949, and the scale of pay provided therein for the lower categories of employees was as follows: JUDGEMENT_38_AIR(SC)_1957Html2.htm The Union was party No. 192 in those proceedings, but for technical reasons, the tribunal declined to adjudicate on their disputes. The result was that this award was no more binding on the parties than the one passed by the Engineering tribunal. But the scale fixed in the award of the Mercantile tribunal was decidedly more favourable to the employees than either the scale recommended by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and adopted by the Company on 1/10/1946 or that fixed in the award of the Engineering tribunal, and it is therefore not surprising that it should have inspired the Union to present a demand for wages and dearness allowance on the scales provided therein. The Company having declined to accept it, there arose an industrial dispute, and by a notification dated 18/ 1/1950, the government of West Bengal referred the same for adjudication to one Shri Palit, District Judge. Before him, the Company contended that as the members of the Union were employees in an Engineering concern, the scale of pay applicable to' them was that laid down in the award of the Engineering tribunal, and that as the scale actually in force was more favourable to them than that scale, there was no ground for revision. The Union, on the other hand, contended that not having been a party to the proceedings before the Engineering tribunal, it was not bound by the award therein, and that as its members were clerical staff and not workers, the scales fixed in the award of the Mercantile tribunal were more appropriate to them. By his award dated 12/6/1950 shri Palit held that the nature of the work and the qualifications of the clerical staff were not the same in all business establishments, that the clerks in mercantile concerns were better qualified and had to do more onerous work than the members of the Union, that the latter could not be put in the same position as the former, and that the scale of pay fixed in the scheme of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce which was adopted by the Company was fair and required no revision. He, however, made some slight changes in the incremental scales and the maximum limits of the grades. The scheme as settled in his award with reference to the categories involved in this appeal was as follows: JUDGEMENT_38_AIR(SC)_1957Html3.htm The Union preferred an appeal against this award, but that was dismissed as barred by limitation. Under section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947, an award is to be in operation for a period of one year, and under section 19(6), it is to continue to be binding on the parties even thereafter, until terminated by either party by giving two months' notice. Acting on this provision, the Union issued a notice to the Company on 12/7/19511 being exactly one year from the date of publication of Shri Palit's award dated 12/6/1950, declaring its intention not to be bound by it. This was followed in November by presentation of demands including' one for raising the scale of pay to the level adopted in the award of the Mercantile tribunal, and the result was an industrial dispute, which is the subject-matter of the present reference. Shri Banerji, who heard the, reference, held that the question as to the scale of pay had been directly adjudicated upon by Shri Palit, that, on principle, the decision of a tribunal on a matter referred to it should not be disturbed, unless there had been a change of circumstances since the date of the award, and as none such existed,, the wage structure as fixed by him should stand. The Appellate tribunal disagreed with this conclusion. It held that the award of Shri Palit, which Shri Banerji accepted, was bad for the reason that it had fai the Company. Having raised the floor level of the wage structure as aforesaid, it correspondingly raised the ceiling level and the scales of increment, and further with a view to maintain the differential scales as between the different categories, it raised the minimum pay in scales where it stood at Rs. 65.00 and more, with `consequential change in their incremental scales and the maximum grades`.;