Swadeshi
Cotton Mills Vs. Industrial Tribunal (III) [1993] INSC 337 (7 September 1993)
Sawant,
P.B. Sawant, P.B. Yogeshwar Dayal (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (2) 563 1993 SCALE (4)225
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1. The
twenty-four employees involved in the present industrial dispute are, variously
peons, gardeners and sweepers, working at the Head Office of the
appellant-mills. Out of them, fifteen workmen had earlier raised an industrial
dispute demanding wages and dearness allowance as was paid to the workmen in
the factory of the mills. By an award dated October 30, 1982, the Industrial Tribunal granted the wages and dearness
allowance to them on par with those payable to the workmen in the factory. The
appellant-mills thereafter extended the same wages and dearness allowance as
awarded by the Tribunal to the rest of the present twenty- four workmen.
2.It
appears that misinterpreting the award in question, the appellant-mills also
extended the other service conditions as were applicable to the workmen in the
factory to the present employees and withdrew the corresponding other service
conditions which they were enjoying prior to the award of 1982. Aggrieved by
the withdrawal of the said other service conditions, the workmen raised the
present industrial dispute claiming that the mills had committed an illegal
change within the meaning of Section 4-1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes 564
Act, 1947 ('the Act'). The State Government made a reference of the said
dispute to the Industrial Tribunal in the following terms:
"Whether
not giving the wages on monthly basis, 40 days' leave, 2 months' advance salary
and benefit of the uniform by the employer to the 24 workmen as mentioned in
the list, is justified and legal? If not, then what benefit/relief are
admissible to the concerned employees and with what particulars." 3.The
Tribunal found that the benefits which the employees were getting prior to the
award of 1982 were more advantageous and since they were withdrawn, there was
an illegal change within the meaning of Section 4-1 of the Act, and struck down
the said change in the service conditions.
The
High Court in writ petition confirmed the award of the Tribunal. Hence the
present appeal.
4.Shri
Sangh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-mills contended that there
was no illegal change within the meaning of Section 41 of the Act and the Mills
were justified in giving to the concerned employees all the service conditions
which were available to the factory workmen since the 1982 award had treated
the present employees as deputationists from the factory to the Head Office.
5.On
the admitted fact that the award of 1982 had only extended the wages and
dearness allowance of factory workmen to the present employees and no other
conditions, the appellant-mills were not justified in withdrawing the other
service conditions of the present employees and in substituting the
corresponding service conditions available to the factory workmen. The present
dispute was raised by the employees contending that they should be made
available the same service conditions (other than the wages and dearness
allowance), which were available to them prior to 1982 award. The Tribunal as
well as the High Court have found that the change effected by the appellantmills
was illegal and hence the earlier service conditions (other than the wages and
dearness allowance) should be restored to the employees. As has been pointed
out earlier, the industrial dispute which led to 1982 award was raised only for
claiming the wages and dearness allowance which were payable to the factory
workmen and for no other benefits. The award of 1982 also gave to the employees
only the wages and dearness allowance as was paid to the factory workmen and
gave no other benefit. However, relying only on one sentence of the award,
viz., that the employees in question were deputationists from the factory to
the Head Office, the appellant-mills substituted the other service conditions
as well for the earlier corresponding service conditions enjoyed by the
employees. That change was neither warranted by the award nor by the equity. We
are, therefore, satisfied that the present demand was justified also on the
terms of the earlier award. In the circumstances, we maintain the award of the
Tribunal as well as the impugned order of the High Court and make it clear that
the employees in question would be entitled to all service conditions other
than the wages and dearness allowance, as were available to them prior to 1982.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly with costs throughout.
Back