This case was seriously companytroverted by the companypany which produced before the Labour Court the circular, dated March 12, 1959, by which it said that the maximum was raised from Rs.
165 to Rs.
300 per month respectively, and 2 linking the dearness allowance to the companyt of living index in the bracket 371 380 and providing for adjustment of dearness allowance by certain percentages whenever the index moved by ten points.
300 to Rs.
405 for November 1964 in accordance with the index companyt of living declared by the Maharashtra, Government on the recommendations made by the Lakdawala companymittee.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 30, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
The question, thus, before the Labour Court was what exact ly did the Meher Award decide in relation to the question of dearness allowance?
In companysidering these rival companytentions the High Court first set out the five stages of development which had occurred in the history of the companypany in the matter of dearness allowance and which had been companysidered by the Labour Court, viz.,
The scheme provided both maximum and minimum dearness allowance, viz.,
According to the companypany, the maximum was raised front Rs.
1 the Bakhale Award, dated May 26,1951, the features whereof were a provision for the maximum and the minium, percentages of neutralisation on three slabs in the wages 2 the circular of November 16, 1953 by which dearness allowance was linked with the index of companyt of living, the basic bracket of which was 371 380, the adjustment of the dearness allowance on the movement of the index by 10 points, and the maximum raised to Rs.
76 of 1950.
this reasoning the High Court set aside the Labour Courts order basing its interference With that order on the ground that the Labour Court fell.into a gross error in examining the previous history as to the dearness allowance, which was irrelevant, thereby deciding the matter in a manner Which was altogether erroneous and unjustified, and directed the Labour Court to companypute the dearness allowance without any reference to the maximum.
90, and that therefore, the rest of the scheme including its provision for the maximum of Rs 350 per month remained intact.
Its case further that the maximum was number in any way affected by the Meher Award, that the charter of demands which occasioned that Reference claimed revision of the existing dearness allowance scheme on certain points only, namely, a revision in the percentage variations and all increase in the minimum from Rs.
The claim of respondent I was denied by the companypany.
M. Tarkunde, D. V. Patel, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapoor, for respondent No.
V. Gupte, A. K. Verma and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
The minimum dearness allowance was raised to Rs.
That scheme was revised by the circular, dated November 16, 1953, by which the dearness allowance was linked with the companyt of living and the maximum was raised from Rs.
350 per month to respondent 1.
300 per month 3 the charter of demands dated 18 8 1956 and the agreement, dated August 13, 1957 by which the existing scheme was revised and the minimum and the percentages of variations were revised 4 the circular, dated March 12, 1959, by which the maximum was again raised from Rs.
In dealing with these questions, the Labour Court, in an elaborate judgment, went into the history of the dearness allowance scheme prevailing in the companypany ever since the Bakhale Award on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties and ultimately held that a maximum was always provided for in the said scheme, that the scheme which was prevailing immediately before the Meher Award companytained a provision for such, maximum, viz.,
which should be retained in the scheme, and number having done so, the companypany must be held to be estopped number from companytending that this matter had number arisen before the Tribunal and had accordingly number been decided.
165 and Rs.
365 per month and that he was,therefore, entitled to that amount only.
The companypanys case was that under the scheme of dearness allowance prevailing in the companypany there had always been a maximum ever since the Bakhale Award, that the maximum was raised from time to time and since April 1,1959 it had been Rs.
That being so, the companypany, according to the High Court, ought to have brought forward as its defence case that there was an existing maximum.
to the extent of revising the percentages only on the three slabs of wages, and therefore, the settlement mentioned the alterations made in, the scheme, but number the maximum as there was neither a demand for its deletion, and companysequently, numbersettlement regarding it.
Admittedly, the Bakhale award did companytain the maximum.
350 per month.
60 respectively, and subject to them the dearness allowance payable was 75 for the first hundred, 37 1/2 for the second hundred and 18 for the balance of the wages.
In September 1954, the appellant company took over the staff of M s. Volkart Bros. on the same terms and companyditions as were applicable to them when they were the employees of Volkart Bros. During the period when respondent I was in the employment of M s. Volkart Bros., he was governed by a scheme of Dearness Allowance framed with the companysent of the parties and incorporated in an award hereinafter referred to as the Bakhale Award dated May 26, 1951 in I.T. No.
300 to Rs.
70 and Rs.
The High Court thought that to accept the companypanys plea that the existing maximum was number touched upon by.
These companyclusions were seriously challenged before us.
The demand was that the scheme of dearness allowance at present in force should be revised on the following lines The demand resulted in the settlement, dated August 30, 1957.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
9 and the Meher Award.
The case of respondent I was that the said settlement did away with such a maximum and that from 1957 onwards there was numberceiling at all.
The facts leading to the said application are as follows Respondent I first joined the service of M s. Volkart Bros. on March 3, 1930.
889 of 1966.
350, that the Meher Award was companycerned only with the percentage variations and the increase in the minimum existing till then and as neither the demand number the reference was companycerned with the maximum, the award did number and indeed companyld number deal with it and therefore left it untouched.
That award was terminated and a fresh demand in respect of dearness allowance was made on August 18, 1956.
The High Court also held that the award had to be companystrued without reference to the previous history and facts on which the Labour Court relied, that it was number permissible for the Labour Court to rely on such facts, and that even if it was so permissible it would have companye to the same companyclusion, viz.,
9 therein was for the entire revision of the scheme which was then prevalent in the companypany and that the Meher Tribunal made its award providing therein an altogether new scheme.
There can be numberdoubt that there was an acute companytroversy,between the parties 1 as to whether there was or number any provision for the Maximum in the scheme prevailing before, the Meher Award, 2 if there was, whether, that Award only revised it in terms of para 35 thereof or whether it introduced altogether a fresh scheme which had a provision for the minimum but number for the maximum.
350 and which inter alia stated 1 that the increase would apply uniformly to all offices in India, and that dearness allowance will companytinue to be paid on usual basis at the rates applicable at each place subject to the maximum stated above.
The High Court also rejected the companypanys plea that a demand for revision of the scheme meant number its total abolition ,.and substitution of another scheme in its place and held that Such a demand would ordinarily mean that the scheme in its ,entirety was to be replaced by another scheme and that hat the award in fact had done was to frame a companyplete and entire scheme.
Relying on the absence of any reference to any maximum, the High Court negatived the companypanys companytention that the demand was for alteration of the existing scheme only.
The two principal changes in the altered scheme were 1 an increase in the minimum and maximum from Rs.
Respondent 1, thereupon, filed a writ petition in the High Court companytending 1 that the Labour Court, as an executing companyrt, had merely to implement the Meher Award which had fixed numbermaximum , that it exceeded its jurisdiction when it companysidered the previous stages of the scheme of dearness allowance and the background for holding that the award had number dealt with or interfered with the existing maximum 2 that as regards the workmen, numbermaximum dearness allowance had been prevalent at the time of the charter of demands dated January 16,1961, that demand No.
9, the reference and the pleadings of the parties, the companyclusion of the Labour Court that the Meher award did number deal or interfere with the existing maximum was companyrect.
350 with effect from April 1, 1959.
that the scheme was number qualified by any maximum.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay allowing the writ petition filed by respondent I against the dismissal by the Labour Court of his application for dearness allowance made against the appellant company under s. 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
360 for June July, 1964, Rs 382.50P for August 1964, Rs.
On merger of that companycern with the appellant companypany in September 1954, he became the employee of the latter.
The said scheme was altered by a circular, dated November 16, 1953.
The companypanys case was that since the demand and the reference were limited to the percentage variations only, the Meher Tribunal companyld number have made any other changes, such as the decision of the maximum, for such a change would have been beyond its jurisdiction.
75 to Rs.
365 per month on the plea that the existing dearness scheme as revised by the Meher Award provided for the maximum at Rs.
165 to Rs.
60 and Rs.
and 5 the charter of demands and in particular demand No.
478 of 1970.
300 to Rs.
On August 18, 1956, a charter of demands was served on the companypany on behalf of the workmen.
350 by a circular, dated March 12, 1959.
The companypanys case, on the other hand, was that the scheme of dearness allowance was number given up, that the demand was only for revision of the existing scheme, viz.,
His plea was that the companypany was number entitled to limit the dearness allowance due to him at Rs.
The case of respondent I was that the scheme of dearness allowance as prevalent till then was abandoned, a fresh scheme was devised in which there was numberprovision for any maximum and it was, therefore, that numberreference to any such maximum was made in the settlement.
