NARENDRA KUMAR SEN Vs. ALL INDIA INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition challenging two decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that they had failed to exercise jurisdiction rested in the Tribunal under the law. Petitioner; Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are the employees of the second respondent company, and petitioner No. 3 was up to October 1951 also in the employment of the second respondent company. It appears that some of the employees of the Ford Motor Co. have formed a union to protect their interests, and the petition is filed by the five petitioners on behalf of themselves and all other workmen employed by the second respondent company. This union raised an industrial dispute in 1946. It was referred to the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal which consisted of Mr. Kamerkar gave its award on 5-5-1913, and the award lasted till 16-5-1S49. There was another dispute between the workmen of the Ford Motor Co. and the company again in September 1949 and it was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by Government under Section 10(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 29-9-1949, and the award in this dispute was given on 20-1-1951. There was an appeal from this award and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the award on 3-7-1951. There was a third dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by Government on 16-8-1950. In this dispute the award was given on 25-10-1951. An appeal was preferred from this award and the Appellate Court gave its decision on 29-5-1952.

(2.) The main question which arises on this petition is whether the Labour Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate with regard to the scales of pay and the right of bonus of employees of the second respondent company who are not workmen of the company within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, In other, words, the question for our consideration is whether it is competent to the workmen of the second respondent company to raise a dispute with regard to payment of wages and bonus, not to themselves, but to other employees of the company, and having raised such a dispute whether it is competent to the Labour Tribunal to adjudicate upon such a dispute, when the matter was before Mr. Kamerkar as the Industrial Tribunal, he held that foremen and divisional heads of the second respondent company did not fall in the category of workmen as defined by the Act. When the second dispute with regard to this company was referred to Mr. Bakhle, the demands made by the workmen included a demand for fixing the scales of pay for foremen and divisional heads, and Mr. Bakhle in his award held that foremen and divisional heads belonged to the supervisory category and would not be within the scope of his award. When an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Tribunal from this award, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower Tribunal on the ground that Mr. Kamerkar had taken the same view with regard to the status of divisional heads and foremen by his award dated 5-5-1948, and it was not advisable that this matter should be reviewed or revised within such a short time, and when the award was made on 5-10-1951, one of the matters which the workmen wanted the Tribunal to adjudicate upon was the question of bonus and they put forward the claim for bonus not only on behalf of workmen but also on behalf of foremen and divisional heads. The Industrial Tribunal excluded divisional heads and foremen from the benefit of the award with regard to bonus which was conferred upon other workmen, and when the matter went to the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and expressed the opinion that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims of foremen and divisional heads.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Desai is that it was competent to the workmen of the second respondent company even as defined by the Act to raise a dispute with regard to the claims of foremen and divisional heads, and that once a dispute was raised, it was incumbent upon the Labour Tribunals to adjudicate upon the dispute, and In failing to consider whether the divisional heads and the foremen were entitled to the various benefits conferred under the awards upon other workmen, the Labour Tribunals had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them under the Act. Now, the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate flows from Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. It is only when an Industrial dispute has been referred to a Tribunal that the Tribunal has the authority to adjudicate upon it. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal depends upon an industrial dispute being referred to it. An "industrial dispute" is defined in the Act as any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person; and the question that we have to consider in this petition is whether a dispute with regard to the terms of employment of any person, whether he is a workman or not, is an industrial dispute which can be referred to the Tribunal by Government under Section 10 and which could be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal under Section 15.