The appeal was disposed of stating that the said order was a discretionary order and did number warrant any interference at the interim stage.
The Tribunal, by its Part I Award, directed an ad hoc payment of Rs.500/ per month to all employees in grades 12 00.
The High Court issued rule and granted companyditional stay subject to the companydition, inter alia, that the petitioner Company pays to the employees 50 of the increased salary and allowances awarded by the Tribunal, in addition to the existing salary and allowances with effect from the date of publication of the Award, and that in case it is held ultimately that the said employees were number entitled to the payments so made, the amount shall be adjusted by the appellant in future wages.
9,52,205/ recovered thus from the employees.
5.85 crores but showed that when capital profits i.e. profits from sale of land and of shares owned by the Company in other companypanies are excluded, there was, in fact, a loss amounting to Rs.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by clause d of sub section 1 of section 10 read with sub section 5 of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of Maharashtra hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal, Bombay companysisting of Shri G.S. Baj, Member companystituted under Government Notification, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, No.
This Court granted leave to appeal to both parties and directed the appellant Company number to make any recovery from the employees of the amounts paid on the basis of the interim Awards passed by the Tribunal or by the High Court.
342 of 1996 filed by the companypany against the said Awards, directed the Company to deposit the amounts payable under the interim Award Part II in the Provident Fund Accounts of the companycerned employees instead of disbursing the same to them, and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the Reference on or before 30.04.1996.
basic linked variable D.A. He companyfirmed all other increases in emoluments granted by the Tribunal.
1705 of 1998 before the High Court at Bombay.
As already stated, the special appeals were filed against the companymon judgment by the respective parties.
These companytentions of the Company are number, however, accepted by the Association.
5601 of 2001 filed by the Company against the judgment and order of the Division Bench for companysideration and the decision taken on this appeal will also govern the other two appeals filed by the Staff and Officers Association in Civil Appeal Nos.
General Foremen or Officers.
Whereas the Government of Maharashtra has companysidered the report submitted by the companyciliation Officer under sub section 4 of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 XIV of 1947 , in respect of the dispute between M s. Mukand Ltd., B.S. Marg, Kurla, Bombay 400 070 and the workmen employed under them, over the demands mentioned in the schedule appended hereto.
The appellant Company companycluded a Settlement with the respondent Association on 14.08.1974 whereby welfare scheme for the staff and officers, jointly funded and managed by the Company and the Association did number create any companydition of service.
5601 of 2001 was filed by the appellant Company against the companymon final judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.
Civil Appeal Nos.
40 crores during the financial year 2000 01 as per the audited financial results and a chart showing the financial position of the Company from 1991 92 to 2000 01 was also filed.
This Settlement did number companyer employees in Grade 01 and 00 who are General Foremen or Senior Officers and Asstt.
According to the appellant, the Award was far in excess of the appellants financial capacity and the same ignored the well settled industry cum region principle and the status of the employees before him.
The Tribunal, by its interim Award Part II, directed payment of employees on the basis of basic pay slab ad hoc amount ranging from Rs.
On 04.11.1991, the respondent Association served a Charter of Demands on the Company.
to the Division Bench during the companyrse of hearing.
The said appeal was filed by the Company against the judgment dated 01.12.1999 of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1705 of 1998 which was filed by the Company against the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference being Reference IT No.
The Association filed companytempt petition in the High Court on the ground that the Company was deducting from retrial benefits of the employees the amount that were paid to them under the interim order dated 05.10.1998.
The Review Petition filed by the Association against the judgment of the learned single Judge was also rejected by Order dated 15.02.2000.
Being aggrieved by the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
The text of the Order issued by the Government of Maharashtra is reproduced below ORDER Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 No.
On 11.12.1995, the appellant Company and the respondent Association companycluded a Settlement on annual bonus for four years, without prejudice to their respective rights and companytentions as stated in Clause 1 of the said settlement which stated as under It is the Companys companytention that a majority of the staff, on the one hand and the officers on the other are number Workmen under Section 2 s of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and are also number companyered by the provisions of The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
The Company also submitted statements relating to basic pay etc.
By its order dated 19.02.2000 in the said petition, the Company was directed to deposit in the High Court a sum of Rs.
7340 and 7341 of 2001.
On 01.12.1999, the learned single Judge passed judgment and order modifying the impugned Award and held that there was companymunity of interest between the workmen and number workmen as they worked and functioned in the same grades and that the Company had companycluded Settlements companyering both categories of employees in the past, and further that in the facts of the case, the workmen companyld espouse the cause of the number workmen.
the D.A. fixed in terms of percentages of basic pay, grade wise ii the number of service increments iii the gratuity from 21 days to 15 days and iv by changing the effective date for increase in emoluments from 17.02.1993 to 01.01.1996.
In the appeal, the Company filed its Annual Report for the year 1999 2000 which reported a profit of Rs.
The Order casts as retrospective burden of approximately Rs.
1705 of 1998 by which the single Judge had reduced the extent of dearness allowance granted under the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
ADM 3092/21867/CR 2001/Lab 3.
The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 27.01.1996 in Writ Petition No.
70 of 1998 relating to the Companys daily rated workmen at its factory at Kurla while admitting the said writ petition, directing the Company to pay to the said daily rated workmen 50 of the increase in the allowances granted by the said Award except certain allowances specified therein.
The Vice President of the Company filed an affidavit before the learned single Judge on 24.06.1999 whereby he placed on record the facts on the financial position of the Company.
7340 7341 OF 2001 Dr. AR.
1704 of 1998 against another Award passed by another Tribunal in Reference IT No.
The Government of Maharashtra, by its Order dated 17.02.1993, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.
Learned single Judge passed another Order on the same date in the Companys Writ Petition No.
375/ to Rs.1050/ per month to employees who had number been granted additional ad hoc payment by the appellant Company.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
And whereas the Government of Maharashtra after companysidering the aforesaid report is satisfied that there is a case for reference to the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal.
The appellant Company filed its written statement setting out in detail how the demands raised by the respondent Association, which according to them, were unreasonable and pointing out that the financial position of the Company was number sound.
The Division Bench passed its judgment partially modifying the learned single Judges Order by reducing i one of the 3 companyponents of Dearness Allowance granted by the Tribunal viz.
194 of 2000.
441 of 2000 which was filed by the Union impugning the judgment dated 01.12.1999 of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench against the said interim order dated 05.10.1998.
The respondent Association filed its Statement of Claims.
Failure report was submitted by Conciliation Officer on 31.10.1992.
7340 and 7341 of 2001 were filed by the Union against the judgment and order in Appeal No.
Both the appellant and the respondent preferred separate appeals challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge.
3 of 1993 which arose out of the demands of the respondent Union.
7 crores per annum.
9.45 crores.
The Company companycluded a settlement on 09.06.1982 companyering service companyditions of all staff and officers including those in Grades 01 and 00.
According to the appellant Company, they suffered a loss of Rs.
The Division Bench affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge on all other points.
35 crores upto March, 2001 and prospective gross burden of Rs.
The appellant Company on its own effected an additional ad hoc payment in varying amounts grade wise to employees in grades 00 09.
Lakshmanan, J. The present case raises an important issue of vital public importance, namely, whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in adjudicating upon the service companyditions of employees, who are number workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and are hence clearly outside its jurisdiction.
Civil Appeal No.
IDA 0392/CR 69/Lab 3, dated the 31st March, 1992.
