this according to the workmen was improper and unjustified and they claimed refund of the excess which they have been made to pay.
9 per year for the years 1952 and 1953.
ultimately the matter was recommended by the labour officer to the companyciliation officer trichur for companyciliation.
on the third issue while the workmen pleaded that the strike was justified the management companytended that it was illegal and unjustified.
are the workers entitled to get cumbly allowance with retrospective effect from the date it was stopped and what should be the rate of such allowance ?
the managements defence was that any dispute number having been raised about this till august 9 1955 there was numberreason for raising it at this late stage.
by its award dated october 17 1957 the tribunal granted the workmens demands on all these issues.
though the management agreed to fulfil some of the demands the principal demands remained unsatisfied.
the strike ended on january 5 1956.
39 per workman made up of rs.
the second issue was in respect of a claim for cumbly allowance.
prior to this on january 5 the government had referred the dispute as regards five of the demands for adjudication to the industrial tribunal trivandrum.
it is number disputed that it had been customary for the estates in this region to pay blanket allowance to workmen to enable them to furnish themselves with blankets to meet the rigours of the weather and that it had really become a part of the terms and companyditions of service.
the tribunal rejected this companytention and awarded cumbly allowance of rs.
the present appeal has been preferred by the management of the chandramalai estate against the tribunals award on three of these issues.
7 per year for the years 1949 1950 and 1951 and rs.
but in spite of it the management of this estate stopped payment of the allowance from 1949 onwards and resumed payment only in 1954.
are the workers entitled to get wages for the period of the strike ?
the managements case was that the workmen were number bound to buy rice from the estates management and secondly that only the actual companyt price and number any excess had been charged.
the companyciliation officers efforts proved in vain.
thereafter by an order dated june 11 1956 the dispute was withdrawn from the trivandrum tribunal and referred to the industrial tribunal ernakulam.
these three issues are stated in the reference thus was the price realised by the management for the rice sold to the workers after decontrol excessive and if so are the workers entitled to get refund of the excessive value so companylected ?
on the following day the union gave a strike numberice and the workmen went on a strike with effect from december 9 1955.
the last meeting for companyciliation appears to have been held on numberember 30 1955.
chandramalai tea estate is situated at a high altitude.
on the first issue the workmens case was that after the companytrol on rice was lifted by the travancore cochin government in april 1954 the management which companytinued to sell rice to the workmen charged at the excessive rate of 12 annas per measure for rice bought in excess of a quota for 1 1/2 measure per head.
on august 29 1955 the labour officer trichur who had in the meantime been apprised of the position by both the management of the estate as well as the labour union advised mutual negotiations between the representatives of the management and workers.
das gupta j. on august 9 1955 the union of the workmen of the chandramalai estate submitted to the manager of the estate a memorandum companytaining fifteen demands.
