Case: Management Of Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited,Harkhua, District Vs. Their Workmen Represented By Chini Mill Mazdoor Union,Hark

Central Government. Reliance is placed on the words "concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government" appearing in S. 2 (a) (i). It is true that sugar is a controlled industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 but that in our opinion does not conclude the matter. In order that the appropriate government under S. 2 (a) (i) may be the Central Government for a controlled industry, it is necessary that such controlled industry should be specified by the Central Government for the purposes of S. 2 (a) (i). This in our opinion is obvious from the words "controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government" appearing in S. 2 (a) (i). It is not enough that an industry should be a controlled industry to attract this provision of S. 2 (a) (i); it is further necessary that it should be specified in this behalf, namely for the purposes of S. 2 (a) (i), as a controlled industry by the Central Government, before the Central Government can become the appropriate government within the meaning of S. 2 (a) (i). We may in this connection refer to Firebricks and Potteries Ltd. v. Firebricks and Potteries Ltd. Workers Union Ltd., ILR (1955) Mys 546: ( (S) AIR 1956 Mys 7), where the same view had been taken. We are of opinion that that is the correct meaning of these words appearing in S. 2 (a) (i), as already held in Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd., (AIR 1960 SC 692 ). The objection that the reference was not competent therefore fails. 6. We next come to the contention raised on behalf of the mill that there was in fact no prejudice whatsoever so far as the status and emoluments of Ramkrishna Prasad were concerned by the creation of the new post and the appointment of Babulal Parekh on it, and that the tribunal was not justified in any case in granting an increment of Rs. 30 per mensem to Ramkrishna Prasad. The main consideration which influenced the tribunal in passing the order which it did was that in the view of the tribunal Ramkrishna Prasad was superseded by Babulal Parekh who was first appointed as a clerk under him. This view of the tribunal in our opinion is patently erroneous. The appointment order dated October 4, 1952, clearly shows that Babulal Parekh was appointed as store in-charge from the very beginning at Rs. 180 per month. The tribunal referred to certain entries in the attendance register to hold that Babulal Parekh worked as clerk to begin with . It appears from the attendance register for the months of October, November and December that Babulal Parekh was marked present from October 7 to November 9. Thereafter from November 11 to the end of December he signed the attendance register. The statement of Chaudhari, Labour Welfare Officer of the mill was that the practice in the mill was that officers used to be marked present in the attendance register while clerks used to sign it themselves. The tribunal has concluded from the fact that Babulal Parekh signed the register in November that he must have been a clerk to begin with. The tribunal, however, completely overlooked that from October 7 to November 9, Babulal Parekh was marked present which would show that he was not a clerk. The tribunal also overlooked that even from November 28 to the end of December when Babulal Parekh admittedly was not a clerk but store in-charge he still signed the register, though he should have been marked present. Chaudhari was unable to explain how this happened, but he was hardly the person to explain this. It is, however, clear from this confusion that no importance can be attached to whether Babulal Parekh was marked present in the register or signed it. The real thing which determined the status of Babulal Parekh was the appointment order dated October 4, 1952, which the tribunal has accepted as correct. A question was certainly put to Chaudhari at the end of his cross-examination that he had manufactured the statements put in by him only the night before but he denied it. We cannot accept the suggestion on behalf of the respondents that the appointment order was ante-dated, for no such suggestion was made to Chaudhari and the tribunal itself does not find so. It is clear therefore that the finding of the tribunal that Babulal Parekh was appointed as clerk under Ramkrishna Prasad to begin with is patently perverse and it must be held that Babulal Parekh was from the very beginning working as store in-charge. Now in so far as Ramkrishna Prasad was concerned his work and emoluments remained the same after the appointment of Babulal Parekh. If a higher post was created in the Stores Department because of the increase in work, Ramkrishna Prasad could not claim promotion to it merely because he was working as a store-keeper before. There is of course no question of supersession in this case and therefore there is no reasonable cause for any heart burning.As the learned tribunal itself points out, "promotion to higher post was the exclusive function of the management" and if a new post is created and a new man appointed, as in this case, it cannot be said that Ramkrishna Prasads status was in any way prejudicially affected.It is also remarkable that after saying all that it could in favour of Ramkrishna Prasad the tribunal did not interfere with the arrangement made by the mill for reasons which were not specified by it in the order.As such there was no reason for granting an increment of Rs. 30 per mensem to Ramkrishna Prasad, for even the workmen did not claim that he was entitled to any compensation in the shape of an increment in his pay because of the appointment of Babulal Parekh. The order of the tribunal therefore is patently unsupportable and must be set aside.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]It is true that sugar is a controlled industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 but that in our opinion does not conclude the matter. In order that the appropriate government under S. 2 (a) (i) may be the Central Government for a controlled industry, it is necessary that such controlled industry should be specified by the Central Government for the purposes of S. 2 (a) (i). This in our opinion is obvious from the words "controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government" appearing in S. 2 (a) (i). It is not enough that an industry should be a controlled industry to attract this provision of S. 2 (a) (i); it is further necessary that it should be specified in this behalf, namely for the purposes of S. 2 (a) (i), as a controlled industry by the Central Government, before the Central Government can become the appropriate government within the meaning of S. 2 (a) (i)6. We next come to the contention raised on behalf of the mill that there was in fact no prejudice whatsoever so far as the status and emoluments of Ramkrishna Prasad were concerned by the creation of the new post and the appointment of Babulal Parekh on it, and that the tribunal was not justified in any case in granting an increment of Rs. 30 per mensem to Ramkrishna Prasad. The main consideration which influenced the tribunal in passing the order which it did was that in the view of the tribunal Ramkrishna Prasad was superseded by Babulal Parekh who was first appointed as a clerk under him. This view of the tribunal in our opinion is patently erroneous. The appointment order dated October 4, 1952, clearly shows that Babulal Parekh was appointed as store in-charge from the very beginning at Rs. 180 per month. The tribunal referred to certain entries in the attendance register to hold that Babulal Parekh worked as clerk to begin with . It appears from the attendance register for the months of October, November and December that Babulal Parekh was marked present from October 7 to November9. Thereafter from November 11 to the end of December he signed the attendance register. The statement of Chaudhari, Labour Welfare Officer of the mill was that the practice in the mill was that officers used to be marked present in the attendance register while clerks used to sign it themselves. The tribunal has concluded from the fact that Babulal Parekh signed the register in November that he must have been a clerk to begin with. The tribunal, however, completely overlooked that from October 7 to November 9, Babulal Parekh was marked present which would show that he was not a clerk. The tribunal also overlooked that even from November 28 to the end of December when Babulal Parekh admittedly was not a clerk but store in-charge he still signed the register, though he should have been marked present. Chaudhari was unable to explain how this happened, but he was hardly the person to explain this. It is, however, clear from this confusion that no importance can be attached to whether Babulal Parekh was marked present in the register or signed it. The real thing which determined the status of Babulal Parekh was the appointment order dated October 4, 1952, which the tribunal has accepted as correct. A question was certainly put to Chaudhari at the end of his cross-examination that he had manufactured the statements put in by him only the night before but he denied it. We cannot accept the suggestion on behalf of the respondents that the appointment order was ante-dated, for no such suggestion was made to Chaudhari and the tribunal itself does not find so. It is clear therefore that the finding of the tribunal that Babulal Parekh was appointed as clerk under Ramkrishna Prasad to begin with is patently perverse and it must be held that Babulal Parekh was from the very beginning working as store in-charge. Now in so far as Ramkrishna Prasad was concerned his work and emoluments remained the same after the appointment of Babulal Parekh. If a higher post was created in the Stores Department because of the increase in work, Ramkrishna Prasad could not claim promotion to it merely because he was working as a store-keeper before. There is of course no question of supersession in this case and therefore there is no reasonable cause for any heart burning.As the learned tribunal itself points out, "promotion to higher post was the exclusive function of the management" and if a new post is created and a new man appointed, as in this case, it cannot be said that Ramkrishna Prasads status was in any way prejudicially affected.It is also remarkable that after saying all that it could in favour of Ramkrishna Prasad the tribunal did not interfere with the arrangement made by the mill for reasons which were not specified by it in the order.As such there was no reason for granting an increment of Rs. 30 per mensem to Ramkrishna Prasad, for even the workmen did not claim that he was entitled to any compensation in the shape of an increment in his pay because of the appointment of Babulal Parekh. The order of the tribunal therefore is patently unsupportable and must be set aside.