RAJARAM ROKADE AND BROTHERS Vs. EMPLOYEES OF RAJARAM ROKADE AND BROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Rajaram Rokde and Brothers, a partnership firm engaged in doing business of manufacturing picture and photo frames at Nagpur. The respondents-employees through their elected representatives gave a notice of change under Section 42 (2) read with Rule 52 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, raising certain demands. As no agreement was reached between the parties, a further notice was served by the elected representatives under Section 54 (7) read with Rule 62 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. As the negotiations failed before the Conciliator, the Conciliator made a failure report to the Government. On the basis of the report submitted by the Conciliator, the Government of Maharashtra made a reference to the Industrial Court at Nagpur, under Section 73 (2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. This reference was registered as Reference (ICN) No 9 of 1968.

(2.) The employer resisted the claim made by the employees by filing the written statement and in the said written statement he further raised certain preliminary questions. However, it is not necessary to go into the said preliminary issues as the said questions are not pressed and/or argued before us. In this Reference also a contention was raised on behalf of the employer that the carpenters or polishwalas for whom a revision of pay scale is being demanded, are not employees within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. From paragraph 6 of the Award, it is quite obvious that the same evidence which was adduced by the parties in Reference (ICN) No. 17 of 1968 which was the subject-matter of Special Civil Application No. 1536 of 1971 (Bom) was relied on in this case also. The parties requested the Court that for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in this case oral as well as documentary evidence produced in Reference (ICN) No. 17 of 1968 may also be read as evidence in this case. Therefore, in view of the decision in Special Civil Application No. 1536 of 1971 (Bom) and for the reasons given therein, it will have to be held that there is no substance in this contention raised on behalf of the employer. The decision on this point given in Special Civil Application No. 1536 of 1971 (Bom) will obviously therefore govern the present writ petition also.

(3.) So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned it is contended by Shri V. R. Manohar on behalf of the employer that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has committed an error in granting revision of wages and the dearness allowance and gratuity or the paid holidays to the employees. It is contended by Shri Manohar that while allowing these demands of the employees the learned Member has not taken into consideration well-recognised principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this behalf. According to Shri Manohar the revision of wages contemplated in this reference was above the level of basic minimum wage and therefore it was obligatory on the part of the learned Member to have taken into consideration the capacity of the employer to pay these revised wages. The learned Member has also not taken into consideration the pay scales prevalent in the same or similar industries in the region and therefore, the revision of pay scale as directed by the Industrial Court is not based on "Industry-cum-Region" basis. Shri Manohar further contended that the Award has been made by the Industrial Court without taking into consideration the financial capacity of the employer and as a result of this award the employer is likely to go out of the business, because it is not possible for him to bear this increased burden. He further contended that there is no material on record to indicate that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has taken into consideration the wagestructure prevalent in Photo frames Industry in the Nagpur Region. While deciding the financial capacity of the petitioner, he has not taken into consideration the outstanding loans and has also not made any allowance for depreciation. The whole award is based on hypothetical basis and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. In substance, therefore, it is his contention that the various findings of facts recorded by the learned Member of the Industrial Court are based on conjecture and surmises not supported by the material on record. Shri Manohar has also challenged the award of the Industrial Court framing a gratuity scheme for the employees on the various counts. However, it is not necessary to consider that aspect of the matter in view of the pursis filed by the employees before this Court on 23rd of April, 1976. A statement is made on behalf of the employees in this pursis that: