MANAGEMENT OF THE LAKSHMI MILLS CO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the application of the second respondent under s. 33-C (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, the labour court Coimbatore found that he was a fitter from january 1956, among the staff of the petitioner, and that as such he was entitled to salary on the scales of Rs. 44-11-0--Rs. 64-11-0 and to his first increment on october 1, 1958 and computed his total benefit upto september 30, 1959 at Rs. 316-8-0. This petition by the management under Art. 226 of the Constitution is to quash that order. The main contention of the petitioner which appears to be one of its objections before the labour court but not particularly decided by that court, is that the question whether the second respondent was a fitter, as claimed by him or only a fitter-helper, as claimed by him or only a fitter-helper, as the management would have it was not within the purview of the application under S. 33-C (2) of the Act. Apparently, the labour court proceeded on the view that it had jurisdiction to decide the issue.

(2.) THE second respondent was entertained by the petitioner which is a textile mill at Coimbatore, as a temporary worker on Januarary 17, 1954 and was made permanent from January, 1, 1956 in the Mechanical shop department. Before that time he was in the lowest category of workers classified as unskilled workers and was drawing a basic wae of Rs. 26 per month. In about January 1956, he was directed to work in the reeling section where the conversion of hand reels into power reels was going on, was designated as a power reel fitter. After the process of conversion was completed, he was transferred on April 1 1957 back to the mechanical shop department. His basic wage was enhanced to Rs. 32-8-0 with effect from Feburary 1, 1957, and he continued to receive wages on that scale until October 3. 1959, when he made the present claim as a fitter under S. 33-C (2) claiming wages at Rs. 50-11-0 per month on the basis of an award in I. D. No. 65 of 1958. Prior to that award, some of the textile mills of which the petitioners was one, and their workmen and in relation to certain disputes reached a settlement on september 25 1956, the terms of which appear in the memorandum signed by the parties. Clause 15 of this memorandum stated that the wages and work loads with regards to workers in the Electrical and Mechanical shop departments and automatic loom sections of the relative mills would be discussed between parties and the determination would be added to and from part of the settlement. Failing t reach an agreement this question was referred to for adjudication which ended in the said award published in the Gazette dated February 18 1959. This award fixed the scale of pay for a fitter at Rs. 44-11-0 with effect from october 1, 1957. There is no dispute that if the second respondent were a fitter, e would be entitled to wages at that rate. But according to the management the second respondent was never a fitter but only a fitter helper, even during the time of the conversion of the hand reels into the power reels and notwithstanding his designation as a power reel fitter, the nature of work he did, continued to be the same and his designation was altered into a fitter helper even from April 1 1957. The management further stated that the mere fact that the second respondent was called a power reel fitter during the short period between January 1, 1956 and april 1, 1957 did not in itself entitled him to claim to the scale of salary he was entitled to draw, should be determined not merely with reference to the designation but to the nature of the work he did. It was in such circumstances, the petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the labour court respondent was a fitter or a fitter helper.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that what was decided by the Industrial tribunal in I. D. No. 65 of 1958 was the fixation of the scale of wages for a fitter and not whether the second respondent belonged to that category or not. That question according to the petitioners, not being covered by the award, the second respondent could have it independently raised as an industrial dispute and decided and could not apply S. 33-C (2) as if he was a fitter which was disputed. There is no controversy that the award never went into the question and decided whether the second respondent was a fitter. But what is urged on behalf of the second respondent is that whenever he is entitled to a benefit under the terms and the conditions of his employment, he could invoke S. 33-C (2) to have that benefit computed in terms of money value and that in any case, the scale of wages applicable to a fitter having been fixed or not is incidental to his claim to the benefit of that scale.