| Headnote |
Industrial Dispute - Fixation of wage structure -Factors to be considered - Fair Wage - Living Wage - Extent of power to interfere under Art. 136 with wage scale fixed by Tribunal- Dearness allowance on basis of sliding scales - Interim agreement regarding interim relief not to be ignored - Leave rules- Gratuity-Retirement age-Retrospective operation of award- Delhi shops Establishment Act, 1954 (Delhi 7 of 1954)- Employees's state insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947).The Chief Commissioner, Delhi, referred an industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, which gave its award on March 16, 1959. Both the appellant and the respondents were dissatisfied with the award and they came to this Court by Special leave. The award was challenged by the appellant with regard to scales of pay, dearness allowance, adjustments, leave rules, gratuity and retrospective effect of the award. The respondents attacked the award as regards the working hours, leave rules and retirement age. Held, that while social justice demands that workmen should get a fair share of the national income which they help to produce, it has also to be seen that that docs not result in the drying up of the source of national income itself. lnroads on the profits of the capitalists should not be such as have a tendency to drive capital away from fruitful employment and thereby affect prejudicially capital formation itself. The Tribunal had applied the correct principles and the award should not be disturbed.Held, also, that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a fixed dearness allowance of Rs. 25/-. The object of dearness allowance being to neutralise part of the rise or fall in the cost of living, it should ordinarily be on a sliding scale. Held, that the contention of the appellant that in view of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, no provision need be made about sickness leave at all, was rejected. It was pointed out that in providing for periodical payments to an insured worker in case of sickness or for medical treatment or attendance to him or the members of his family under the Act of 1948, the Legislature did not intend to substitute any of these benefits for the workmen's rig~t to get leave on full pay on the ground of sickness. Held, that as regards those workmen to whom the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. applied, the Tribunal had acted illegally in fixing the period of sick leave at 15 days and permitting accumulation. The appellant shall allow to the work· men to whom the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act applied, sickness or casual leave for a total period of 12 days with full pay and allowances, and such leave shall not accumulate. As it was not desirable to have two separate leave rules for two classes of workmen, one to whom the Act of 1954 applied and the other to whom the Act did not apply, it was held that the same rule should apply to other workers also. Held, also, that the scheme of gratuity as framed by the tribunal was not unduly favourable to workmen and it also did not place any undue strain on the financial resources of the Company. As regards the provision in the gratuity scheme that an employee who is dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to any gratuity; it was held that the proper provision should be that where an employee is dismissed for misconduct which has resulted in financial loss to the employer, the amount of loss should be deducted from the amount of gratuity due. The award of the Tribunal on the question of retirement age was set aside and the retirement age was fixed at 58, subject to the proviso that it would be open to the company to continue in its employment a workman who had passed that age. The rule was to apply to all the employees of the Company.No general formula could be laid down as to the date from which a Tribunal should make its award effective. That question has to be decided by the Tribunal on consideration of the circumstances of each case. There was no justification for interfering with the direction of the tribunal that in this case the reliefs given by it should become effective from the date of the reference. Standard Vacuum Refining Co., of India v. Its workmen, [1961] S. C.R. 536, M/s. Crown Aluminium Works v. Its workmtn, {1958] S. C. R. 651, Express Newspapers Ltd. v; Union of India, [1959] S. C.R. 12, M/s. Lipton Ltd. v. Their workmen (1959] Supp. 2 S. C.R. 150, Workmen Hindustan Motor.< v. Hindustan Motors, (1962) 2 L. L. J. 352, French Motor Car Co. v. Their workmen, (1962) 2 L. L..J. 744 and Guest Keen, Williaams (P) Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling [1961] 1 S. C.R. 348, referred to. |
