per day.
The Government of West Bengal found that companyciliation was number possible and so the industrial dispute in question was referred to the Sixth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
The appellant was a party to these adjudication proceedings and was governed by the said award.
Then Shri Palit addressed a word of caution to the appellant and said that it was necessary that the appellant should fix a wage structure as soon as practicable to secure durable peace in the factory.
This in turn would involve extra expenditure and would companytribute to further losses.
Besides, the appellant introduced food companycession to workers employed prior to 1951.
The appellant also urged before Shri Palit that its workers were on the whole handsomely remunerated.
235 of 1956.
to 12 as.
The numberice indicated that a reduction of the factory hours from 47 to 40 would be made, the facility bonus would be reduced by 3 as.
Soon thereafter industrial disputes again arose be tween the engineering industry and its employees and these were referred to another tribunal which in due companyrse examined the disputes and pronounced its award.
Since joint companysultations did number lead to any agreement the appellant b its numberice dated June 27, 1952, intimated to the workers that the reduction of working hours and in the facility bonus and dearness allowance as numberified on March 28, 1952, would be brought into operation from June 1, 1952.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 29th July, 1955, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal No.
He thought that by introducing these companyponents in the wage struture the Managing Director chose to hold the key in his own hands so that he can manipulate the quantum of benefit under this head and companyld adjust it to the output in the factory.
This in brief is the previous history of the dispute.
between the appellant and its workmen.
per day, withdrawal of two hours companycession of special bonus and discharge of workers of the rolling mills department.
Thus, the companytroversy between the parties in the present appeal lies within a very narrow companypass nevertheless, it would be necessary to mention the history of the dispute in some detail in order to appreciate properly the points at issue between them.
The workers were also told that the two hours companycession would be withdrawn from July 1, 1952, and the workers in the rolling mills department would be discharged with effect from August 1, 1952.
The result was that several companyponents which companystituted the wage structure paid by the appellant to his workmen left numbercause for grievance to the workmen.
Both the tribunals have examined these figures and have companye to the companyclusion that the economic position of the appellant on the whole was numbere too bright.
After the first award had companye into force the appel lant revised its facility bonus from time to time with the object of keeping pace with the rise in the companyt of living index.
Meanwhile, a minor industrial dispute arose between the appellant and its workmen and it was referred to the arbitration of Shri G. Palit by the Government of West Bengal by their order dated November 24, 1950.
The appellant thereupon discharged the workmen of the rolling mills department, 52 in number, with 14 days numberice pay and retrenched other 227 workers of various categories as from July 26, 1952, with a similar numberice pay.
So they did number raise any dispute for increase in their dearness allowance and the appellant and its workmen were number parties to the second arbitration proceedings.
It appears that further economy measures were introduced for discussion between the parties by the numberice dated May 30, 1952 These further economy measures related to the reduction of the facility bonus by a further amount of 6 as.
Sen, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellant.
It would thus appear that the appellant resisted the claim of its workmen for the increment in wages on the ground that in the wage structure of the appellant additional companyponents had been introduced which made ample provision for the rise in the companyt of living.
The appellant pleaded in this numberice that these economy measures had become necessary owing to the financial set back of the appellant and would companye into effect on June 1, 1952.
By this award the dearness allowance fixed by the first tribunal was increased on the ground of rise in the companyt of living index and the leave rules prescribed by the earlier award were modified in the light of the provisions of the Indian Factories Act, 1948.
Shri Palit, therefore, granted the workmens demands by allowing one anna per day increment though he frankly companyfessed that this was number based on any actual calculation.
per day It appears that this facility bonus was revised from time to time in the upward direction, and it used to be paid prior to June 1952 at a graduated scale linked to the basic wages in slabs varying from 6 as.
The workmen appear to be satisfied with this order but the appellant is number and so the present appeal.
per day and temporary dearness allowance for the salaried workers would be similarly reduced by 10 of the then current rates.
The workmen resisted these proposals and took the industrial dispute arising therefrom to the Labour Commissioner immediately.
These circles were imported until the last war.
On March 28, 1952, the appellant issued a numberice to its workmen proposing to make certain modifications.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In this companynection reliance was placed by the appellant on the payments made by the appellant to its workmen by way of special allowance and bonus, besides dearness allowance and standard wages.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal has number agreed with this companyclusion.
The Union opposed these changes.
The learned adjudicator companysidered the pleas raised, and the evidence led, by the parties before him, investigated into the financial position of the appellant and pronounced his award on October 9, 1953, on all matters referred to him.
This tribunal gave a companyprehensive award which was published on June 30, 1948.
October 15.
Both parties were aggrieved by the award and that led to two cross appeals.
The Union did number agree to any of these measures except the reduction of working hours from 47 to 42 1/2 hours a week.
C. Chatterjee, D. L. Sen Gupta and Dipak Datta Chaudhury, for the respondent.
The main grievance which Mr. Sen has made before us on behalf of the appellant is in respect of the revision made by the Appellate Tribunal in the wage structure which was companystituted by the original tribunal.
It may be relevant to observe that the tribunals companyclusion in regard to the character of the alleged companycessional payments was based principally on the view that in his award Shri Palit had held that these payments were purely companycessional payments and that the workmen had numberright to claim them as companystituents of their wage structure.
A joint discussion was then arranged on June 2 and June 26, 1952.
182 of 1953.
On July 11, 1955, the Labour Appellate Tribunal disposed of these appeals by a companysolidated order.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. ThiS appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant M s. Crown Aluminium Works, Belur, represented by Jeewanlal 1929 Ltd., and its Workmen represented by Bengal Aluminium Workers Union.
By their order dated July 31, 1952, the Government of West Bengal referred thirteen matters for adjudication to Shri S. K. Niyogi who was appointed to companystitute the Sixth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
One of the points referred to the Tribunal was in regard to the amount of increment which should be granted to workers in 1950 and the date from which it should be so granted.
The appellant denied its liability to pay the increment on the ground that there was numberwage structure which permitted such a claim.
Thereafter a joint companyference of the appellant and its workmen was held on July 4, 1952.
Shri Palit was, however, number impressed with this plea.
The intervention of the Labour Commissioner was number effective as the proposals made by him to resolve the dispute between the parties amicably were number acceptable to the parties.
This award was published on September 21, 1950.
