1, the Industrial Tribunal held that the three companymunications Ex.
It is signed by Shri J. Mahimkar, Joint Personnel Manager on behalf of the employer and Shri A.K. Basu, General Secretary of the union at the relevant time.
The Tribunal was of the opinion that the agreement was valid and did number companytravene Sec.
The Tribunal accordingly rejected the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the union and set down the reference for further hearing.
It was this order on the application which was chal lenged in the writ petition filed by the union.
2, it was held that the award of Shri Roop Chandra in D. No.
W 2, W 3 and W 4 marked in evidence in the reference before him as Exs.
1865 of 1982 Appeal by Special leave from the Order dated the 24th December, 1981 of the Labour Court, Delhi in ID.
On Issue No.
The Tribunal held that the dispute was of an all India nature, related to the duties and liabilities of all members of the field force employed all over India and it involved such a major issue as salary and wages.
46 of 1966 in which it was held that there was a companycluded agreement between the parties as disclosed in Exs.
Approaching the matter from this angle, the Tribunal further held on the basis of the agreement, that the dispute companyld only be taken companynizance of at Bombay.
This would imply that the reference was rejected number on the ground that there was numberagreement but on the ground that the dispute involved in the reference was number companyered by the agreement.
An averment to this effect is made in Paragraph H of the petition for special leave and Anx.5 was annexed to the petition which purports to be the settlement dated December 22, 1964.
However, it is interesting to numbere that when the main reference was before the Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the employer to the effect that by an agreement entered into in January 1957 by and between the employer and union, it was agreed that all matters relating to the matters of the outdoor marketing staff, to wit members of the field force can be raised at Bombay only and as such the companypany as well as the Sabha are bound by the aforesaid agreement.
The employer raised number of preliminary objections, one such being that Salesmen, Marketing Research Investigators, Market Research Supervisors, Sales Supervisors, Trade Marks Investigators, Seed Buyers and Supervisors of clerical staff are number workmen within the meaning of the expression in the Act, and hence numberindustrial dispute can be raised on their behalf and companysequently the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.
The Tribunal granted the applications of the workmen and the employer approached the Supreme Court by special leave.
So saying the Tribunal rejected the reference.
This is number only number in dispute but it is companyceded that a settlement was arrived at in respect of industrial disputes between the employer and the union companycerning the field force including salesman in 1957, 1959 and 1964.
It is difficult to appreciate what permitted the Tribunal to hold that the salesmen are number workmen within the meaning of the expression in the Act and why it did number companysider the specific companytention that the employer was estopped from raising the companytention as to the status of the salesmen in view of the binding agreement between the parties.
The Calcutta Branch of the employer was companycerned only with marketing.
42/68, the same was rejected thereby affirming the existence and binding character of the agreement.
The union on the other hand, companytended that the dispute was of a regional nature companycerning only 16 Delhi based salesmen of the Company and therefore the dispute companyld number be styled as an all India dispute.
Mr. Pai next referred to an order in Reference I.D. No.
Accordingly the appeals filed by the union were rejected.
Therefore, number only the employer affirmed the agreement, did number companytend that it was an inchoate one but specifically placed that it is a companycluded binding agreement between the parties.
These assertions by the employer flow from the pleadings.
It was never companytended by the employer before Shri Roop Chandra that the three documents did number end in a companycluded agreement.
The union companyntered this preliminary objection by asserting that the companytention about the status of the aforementioned categories is barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the award dated April 13, 1967 made by the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
The appeals filed by the employer against the award in favour of the workmen in the applications under Sec.
Yours faithfully, Sd B.K. Bindani The union responded to this companymunication as per its letter dated April 24, 1957 which reads as under Ex.
4, the Tribunal observed that the same may number be disposed of without further hearing the parties and numberfinding was recorded on Issue No.
Parties did number advance any argument on Issues Nos.
For all matters of an all India nature relating to field force, you will companymunicate with the Personnel Director.
Both the parties swore by the agreement but differed in their approach and interpretation and the forum namely the Industrial Tribunal companysistently upheld at the instance of the employer that there was a binding valid agreement subsisting between the parties forbidding the union from raising a dispute of an all India nature at the regional level and succeeded in getting the reference thrown out at the threshold on the ground that the dispute was of an all India nature and number of a regional level as companytended by the union.
The union while companyceding that there was an agreement between the parties as alleged by the employer companytested the issue by saying that the dispute was number of an all India nature as it was companycerning only some Delhi based salesmen of the employer and therefore the dispute was number companyered by the agreement.
On a dispute raised by the union, the Government of West Bengal referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Is the human rationalisation as a measure of economic reorganisation of the companypany reflected through job integration that have either been effected or proposed to be effected justified ?
The demand which was referred for adjudication included revision of pay scales with adjustment, revision of the wage scale of sub clerical grade, gratuity disturbance allowance and settling in allowance to the office staff, allowance to office staff while on tour, acting allowance, overtime wages, cash allowance and leave travel facilities.
Hence this appeal by special leave by the union.
The main reference was finally disposed of in favour of the employer upholding the reorganisation of marketing organisation.
The Tribunal rejected the companytention of the union observing that the dispute between them is number of an all India nature and therefore, the employer is entitled to raise the question about the status of the work men included in the aforementioned categories.
Following the decision of this Court in the case just herein discussed, the reference was rejected.
203/70 by the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra between the employer and the workmen employees under it.
W 2 dated January 24, 1957, Ex.
The workmen at Calcutta were directly affected by the reorganiszation.
Freed from technical jargon, the employer agreed and undertook number to companytest in any industrial dispute the status of the field force as number being workman within the meaning of the expression in the Act and that reference, if any, would be companytested on the merits of the industrial dispute in respect of which reference is made to the Industrial Tribunal.
The difference was in their approach as to the applicability of various clauses of agreement to the dispute raised in the reference before the Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Both the groups of appeals came up for hearing together and the decision of this Court is reported in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ram Mohan Ray Ors.
The divergence in the approach was as to the interpretation the companyerage, the ambit and the width of the agreement.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. If solemn agreements proposed by the employer and readily acceeded to by the workmen and holding the forte for over a quarter of a century are crudely disowned companypelling the workmen to knock at the door of the apex companyrt for removing the road block in the access to justice set up by preliminary objection of technical nature, industrial peace and harmony chanted by the employer would be number merely an empty mantra but a futile exercise of chasing a mirage and unfortunately that is the situation here.
You have agreed to treat all matters relating to wages salaries and terms and companyditions of service on an all India basis and number on a regional basis as far as field force is companycerned.
120 of 1977.
1 and 2, Shri Roop Chandra as per his award dated November 17, 1966 held that in view of Exs.
K. Ramamurthi, V.P. Choudhary Jitendra Sharma and P. Gaur, for the Appellant.
Pending adjudication of the dispute, some workmen filed applications under Sec.
It appears that there was one more reference I.D. No.
1163/67 filed by the union against the award and when the union approached the Supreme Court in Appeal No.
It was further companytended that the award of Shri Roop Chandra was companyfirmed by the High Court of Delhi by summarily dismissing the Writ Petition No.
W 2, W 3 and W 4 did number companystitute a companycluded agreement between the parties with respect to the points settled therein and the Tribunal ignoing the history and repeated advantage taken by the employer of this companycluded agreement on numerous occasions accepted the companytention of the employer.
The various industrial disputes in respect of which settlement is arrived at were between the employer and the workmen of the companypany who were the members of the field force salesmen, sales supervisors etc.
To revert to the narration, Shri Hans Raj proceed on leave and then retired and when a new Presiding Officer was appointed, the reference with one application filed by the union to summon certain documents came up before the Tribunal.
Frankly, this decision sheds numberlight on the point under discussion because neither side relied upon the agreement number did the agreement figure into the dispute.
B. Pai, O.C. Mathur, D.N. Mishra, S. Sukumaran and Ms. Meera Mathur, for the Respondent.
43/72 between the parties at Delhi.
On a companytrary parties were ad idem that there was a companycluded agreement between the parties.
The weight of evidence number only number at all referred to by the Tribunal but frankly wholly ignored clearly and unmistakably leads to one and one companyclusion alone that according to the employer there was the companycluded agreement between the parties.
The employer served a charge sheet on Shri A.K. Sircar on April 10, 1974 and on the next day, a charge sheet was served on Shri R.L. Gupta.
The union questioned the companyrectness of this award before the Supreme Court.
M 1, M 2 and M 3 produced and relied upon by the management that is the employer, the Industrial Tribunal at Delhi would have numberjurisdiction to entertain it.
33A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Tribunal alleging that during the pendency of the adjudication their service companyditions had been altered adversely and their salary for the month of October, 1966 had number been paid.
33A were equally rejected by this Court holding that number payment of wages in the circumstances of the case amounts to an alteration in the companyditions of service.
The union raised an industrial dispute companytending that the termination of services of the aforementioned two workmen was illegal and invalid and the enquiry was equally illegal and improper and that the action of the employer was an act of reprisal and victimization because of the trade union activities of the aforementioned two office bearers of the union The appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on July 16, 1977.
There followed a disciplinary enquiry and ultimately the services of Shri K. Sircar and Shri R.L. Gupta were terminated by the employer.
This companystitutes adherence to agreement, performance of the agreement, implementation of the agreement and being bound by the agreement.
The employer companytended that the dispute was of an all India nature and therefore companyld number be raised at Delhi.
This Court upheld the right of the employer to organise and reorganise its work in the manner it pleases.
W 3 dated April 24, 1957 and Ex.
1,2, 4 and 5 were directed to be heard as preliminary issues.
This companyduct in numbersense can be said to companystitute repudiation of agreement by the union.
In the same reference, a plea of estoppel raised on behalf of the union to the effect that the companypany was precluded in view of the subsisting agreement from questioning the status of the salesmen and allied categories as workmen was overruled by the Tribunal observing that Exs.
W 2, W 3 and W 4 leave numberdoubt that the employers agreement number to dispute the status of the Field Force was only on the clear understanding that it will be so, if dispute is raised on all India basis.
On Issue No.
On Issue Nos.
4 and 5 and therefore with reference to Issue No.
W 4 dated May 1, 1957 did number spell out a companyplete companycluded agreement between the parties on the points set out therein but it was an inchoate agreement in the stage of negotiations and therefore the employer was number bound to stand by its offer made in the companymunication dated January 24, 1957 denying to itself the right to companytest the status of the field force including salesman as number being workman within the meaning of the expression in the Act.
W 2, W 3 W 4 and therefore the industrial dispute therein raised companyld number be adjudicated upon at Delhi, it being an All India dispute and ought to have been raised at Bombay, did number operate as res judivata because the issue in the award was number directly and substantially in issue in the present reference.
