Case: Cochin State Power, Light Corporation, Limited Vs. Its Workmen

existing wage-rates but should have been lower than the wage-rates prevalent in the Electricity Board in view of the decision at which the tribunal had already arrived. But the tribunal dose not seem to have taken care to deal with the matter on the lines Indicated above. We may add that some of the designations in the appellant-concern are the same as in the case of the Electricity Board; but some of the designations do not tally. In such cases when the tribunal was making comparison with the Electricity Board and decided to grant rates of basic wages which would be lower than the basic wage-rates in the Electricity Board for comparable categories, the tribunal should have taken care to point out the comparable categories from the Electricity Board which would correspond to the categories in existence in the appellant concern and then should have fixed the rates in accordance with its decision to the effect that the basic wages in the appellant-concern should be lower than those in the Electricity Board. It is difficult for us in the circumstances where the categorization is not the same in the appellant-concern as in the Electricity Board to find cut whether the tribunal has given effect to its decision to the effect that the basic wage- rates in the appellant-concern should be lower than those in the Electricity Board. But there are some categories which bear the same name. If we compare the wages fixed in the annexure to the award for such categories with the wages fixed for the same categories in the Electricity Board, we find that in some cases at least the wages fixed in the annexure are higher than the Electricity Board. Take the case of line Inspector. The grade to the Electricity Board is Rs. 50-150 but the grade fixed in the annexure is Rs. 50-175. Take the case of assistant lineman. The grade in the Electricity Board is Rs. 35-60 while the grade fixed in the annexure to the award is Rs. 35-80. Take the case of line-holders. The grade in the Electricity Board is Rs. 35-45 while the grade fixed in the annexure is Rs. 35-50. Take the storekeeper. The grade in the Electricity Board is Rs. 100-250 and the grade fixed in the annexure is the same. Take the case of blacksmith. The grade in the Electricity Board is Rs. 40-100 while in the annexure it is Rs. 40-120. Take the lower division clerks and typists; the grade in the Electricity Board to Rs. 40-120 while the grade in the annexure is also the same. This will be enough to show that though the tribunal said one thing in the body of the award while arriving at its decision, it does not seem to have kept that decision in mind when framing the annexure to the award. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the tribunal should have dealt with the matter more carefully than it seems to have done. Consequently, as the annexure is prima facie inconsistent with the decision of the tribunal, at least in respect of some categories, it must be set aside and the matter sent back to the tribunal to fix basic wage-rates in accordance with its decision, which was to the effect that the wage-rates in the appeal concern have to be lower than the wage-rates in the Electricity Board. We may also add that it will be the duty of the tribunal where the designations do not tally to find out what are the comparably designations in the Electricity Board, for it appears that there is a dispute between the appellant and the respondents as to the correct cor - respondence. Take the case of supervisor, grade I, with engineering qualification. The appellant corresponds the supervisor, grade I, with overseer, grade I, in the Electricity Board. On the other hand the respondents correspond the said post to the junior engineer in the Electricity Board. These are all matters which will have to be gone into by the tribunal before it can properly fix the basic wage-rates in accordance with its decision already mentioned.Re : (ii). - Then we come to the question of temporary workmen. The question referred to the tribunal was about confirmation of the temporary staff. The appellant contended that the reason why some staff was temporary was that they had not passed the required test. The appellant also said that where the temporary staff passed the test, the appellant made them permanent, but where they could not pass the test they had to remain temporary. The tribunal was also of the view that only qualified people could handle electricity and so passing of the test was necessary in order that a workman might be made permanent. The tribunal therefore refused to make the temporary staff permanent but it appealed to the appellant to give one more test to the temporary workmen. It has been stated before us on behalf of the appellant that it has no objection to giving further test to temporary workmen and make them permanent if they pass the test and if there is vacancy. But the appellant contends that trouble is created by the further direction of the tribunal which is in these terms :"Before the test is conducted, the temporary employees must be given the subject-matter of the test so that they can come prepared for the test."4. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the test is a simple one and not a test of the type required for a degree examination by the university. This direction of the tribunal therefore In substance means that before the test to given, the person tested should be told what questions would be put at the test and that means that, that would be no test at all. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that this direction of the tribunal almost amounted to directing a university to conduct examination after publishing examination papers sometime before the examination.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are of opinion that there is force in this contention. As we have already said, we should have expected that having come to the conclusion that the respondents were not entitled to thepaid by the Electricity Board, the tribunal would have given basicwhich would be less than those paid by the Electricity Board. Also we should have expected the tribunal to take care to compare the various kinds of staff in thewith their counterparts in the Electricity Board and then fix basicwhich might have been higher than the existingbut should have been lower than theprevalent in the Electricity Board in view of the decision at which the tribunal had already arrived. But the tribunal dose not seem to have taken care to deal with the matter on the lines Indicated above. We may add that some of the designations in theare the same as in the case of the Electricity Board; but some of the designations do not tally. In such cases when the tribunal was making comparison with the Electricity Board and decided to grant rates of basic wages which would be lower than the basicin the Electricity Board for comparable categories, the tribunal should have taken care to point out the comparable categories from the Electricity Board which would correspond to the categories in existence in the appellant concern and then should have fixed the rates in accordance with its decision to the effect that the basic wages in theshould be lower than those in the Electricity Board. It is difficult for us in the circumstances where the categorization is not the same in theas in the Electricity Board to find cut whether the tribunal has given effect to its decision to the effect that the basic wagerates in theshould be lower than those in the Electricity Board. But there are some categories which bear the same name. If we compare the wages fixed in the annexure to the award for such categories with the wages fixed for the same categories in the Electricity Board, we find that in some cases at least the wages fixed in the annexure are higher than the Electricitywill be enough to show that though the tribunal said one thing in the body of the award while arriving at its decision, it does not seem to have kept that decision in mind when framing the annexure to the award. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the tribunal should have dealt with the matter more carefully than it seems to have done. Consequently, as the annexure is prima facie inconsistent with the decision of the tribunal, at least in respect of some categories, it must be set aside and the matter sent back to the tribunal to fix basicin accordance with its decision, which was to the effect that theappeal concern have to be lower than thein the Electricity Board.We may also add that it will be the duty of the tribunal where the designations do not tally to find out what are the comparably designations in the Electricity Board, for it appears that there is a dispute between the appellant and the respondents as to the correct corThe next point is with respect to the special allowance of four annas which the tribunal has granted to what are called street light scouts. It appears from the statement of claim filed by the union that no claim has been made for any special allowance to street light scouts. We hold that street light scouts are reallyand no more. There was thus no claim for any special allowance forwho happened to do the work of what are called street light scouts. Now there is no reference with respect to payment of special allowance to any category of employees; the reference was only with respect to revision of pay scales.Re : (iv).Lastly we come to the question of the retrospective operation of the award. We have already pointed out that the charter of demands was presented on 14 October 1959 and the reference was made on 15 March 1960. The award of the tribunal was given on 22 July 1961. What the tribunal did was to grant the new scales from January 1960. It also provided how the workmen would be fitted in the new grades from 1 January 1960 and directed that in making such fitment if the existing scale of pay was not a step in the new scale they would be fitted in the next appropriate higher step. It further provided that they would be given one increment on 1 January 1960 and another increment on 1 January 1961, over and above the increments under the settlement and would thereafter be given annual increments on 1 January every year. Lastly it provided that in making fitment and giving one additional increment on 1 January 1960 if an employee does not get a minimum of Rs. 5 on 1 January 1960, he will be at least given Rs. 5 increment with effect from 1 January 1960. Thecontention of the appellant is that these provisions in the award with respect to fitment are very onerous and create large liability on the appellant. It is also contended that under the Electricity (Supply) Act 54 of 1948, which governs the appellant, there are very stringent provisions in Sch. VI bearing on financial principles and their application and it will be very difficult after the accounts for the year have been made up to find money consistently with Sch. VI to pay the arrears which are likely to arise on orders of this kind.We are of opinion that there is force in this contention, though it is not necessary for us to pronounce finally on them, for we have set aside the order fixing the basic wages and in consequence the order as to fitment and Increment will also fall. But the tribunal when it fixes basic wages on remand should take into account the provisions in Sch. VI to the Electricity (Supply) Act when deciding from what date to give effect to the award which it shall be making on remand and will keep in mind the difficulties which may arise in the case of a concern like the appellant, which is governed by Sch. VI to the Electricity (Supply) Act.