BURN AND COMPANY WORKMEN OF BARN AND COMPANY Vs. THEIR EMPLOYEES:BURN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_38_AIR(SC)_1957Html2.htm</FRM> 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: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_38_AIR(SC)_1957Html3.htm</FRM> The Union preferred an appeal against this award, but that was dismissed as barred by limitation.