Case: Bombay Gas Company Limited Vs. Jagannath Pandurang and Others

rejected; so also in the case of coke supply coolies and motor drivers. The workmen concerned here being all workmen of the mains department, the question of their being paid overtime wages under the provisions of the award does not arise. 11. The question, however, remains whether they are entitled to be paid overtime wages under the provisions of S.18(3) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. That Act was in force when the award under consideration was given. It is not correct to say that the workers are entitled to overtime payment by virtue of an amendment made to the Act in 1970. The 1970 amendment had nothing to do with the right of payment of overtime wages. The contention on behalf of the company is that the right to overtime wages based on any ground whatsoever should be deemed to have been dealt with and rejected by the Tribunal which gave the award in 1950. Though the demand for overtime wages was in general terms it could have been or it ought to have been supported either as one of the items of industrial dispute or as flowing from out of the provisions of the Factories Act or flowing from the provisions of the Factories Act of flowing from the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. It was the duty of the party making the demand, who tried to justify the demand, to support it on any one of the alternative basis. They could not have been of ignorant of the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. (Incidentally, though in this case it seems to have been conceded on behalf of the company that the workers are governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, it is contended on behalf of the company that the concession should be deemed to have been made only for the purpose of this case and not for all purposes). It is further contended that the demand for overtime wages under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act should be deemed to be barred on principle analogous to those of the res judicata. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Bombay Gas Co. v. Shridhar Bhau A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1196. But in that case the question whether the workmen should get overtime wages in the same way as the workmen governed by the resulted in the award of 1953 and before the Tribunal it was conceded by the workmen that they were not governed by the Factories Act and the claim for the same overtime wages as those payable to workers under the Factories Act was based on the ground that there was no reason for any distinction between the two sets of workmen. It was, therefore, held that so long as the award remains in force it must be held that these workmen are not governed by the Factories Act and are not entitled to the benefits thereof. In the present case also the question under the Factories Act had been considered but not the question whether they are entitled to overtime wages under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. We consider that the workmen could and ought to have raised the question that even if they were not entitled to claim overtime wages at the same rate as payable to workers governed by the Factories Act, they should at least be paid the same rate rate as those payable to persons governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The workers neither put forward the contention that they were entitled to the benefit of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act nor even that on considerations similar to those applicable to the persons governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. They should also be paid overtime wages under the provisions of that Act. Incidentally it shows that the question as to whether the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act is applicable to these workmen has been raised for the first time in these proceedings. The doctrine of res judicata is a wholesome one which is applicable not merely to matters governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but to all litigations. It proceeds on the principle that there should be no unnecessary litigation and whatever claims and defences are open to parties should all be put forward at the same time provided no confusion is likely to arise by so putting forward all such claims. It was observed by this Court in Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, (1965 (1) S.C.R. 686) :The general principle underlying the doctrine of res judicata is ultimately based on considerations of public policy. One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and the other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice, wide : Daryao and others v. The State of U.P. and others (1962) 1 S.C.R. 574). We are, therefore, of opinion that the question of overtime wages should be deemed to have been dealt with and disposed of by the Tribunal on whatever the basis of the claim for overtime wages may be. 12. The disputes between this company and its workers quite often come to this Court. The case in Bombay Gas Co. v. Shridhar Bhau (supra) is one such. The other cases are found in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, (1964) 3 S.C.R. 709 and Ramlanshan Jageshwar v. Bombay Gas Co. [1961-I L.L.J. 38]. If the workers are dissatisfied with any of the items in respect of which their claim has been rejected it is open to them to raise a fresh industrial dispute. The award has stood the test of time for twenty-five years, a very fare occurrence indeed these days.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]It would not be correct, therefore, to hold that they would be entitled to be paid separately for the weekly day off. It must be presumed that their scales of pay were the same as for the workmen who were working before 1948 also. There was no averment to the contrary. They cannot therefore, be allowed an extra benefit which would not be available to the same category of workmen who were working under the employer since before 19489. The High Court seems to have been of the impression that these workmen were entitled to be paid for the days off either under the award or under S.18(3) of the Bombay shops & Establishments Act. It seems to have assumed that there was a scale of wages for weekly off days under the award. That this is an obvious mistakeWe cannot, therefore, agree with the respondents that the sentences at the end of paragraph 126 to the following effect :I, however, recommend that where overtime work is given to workers not covered by the Factories Act, the rate should at least be the single basic wage plus dearness allowance. I do not, however, desire to give any general directions without knowing the nature of the workWould cover these cases. Demand No. 12 is in respect of all workers of the company. The specific case of workers in the mains department has been dealt with and rejected; so also in the case of coke supply coolies and motor drivers. The workmen concerned here being all workmen of the mains department, the question of their being paid overtime wages under the provisions of the award does not ariseIn the present case also the question under the Factories Act had been considered but not the question whether they are entitled to overtime wages under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. We consider that the workmen could and ought to have raised the question that even if they were not entitled to claim overtime wages at the same rate as payable to workers governed by the Factories Act, they should at least be paid the same rate rate as those payable to persons governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The workers neither put forward the contention that they were entitled to the benefit of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act nor even that on considerations similar to those applicable to the persons governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. They should also be paid overtime wages under the provisions of that Act. Incidentally it shows that the question as to whether the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act is applicable to these workmen has been raised for the first time in these proceedings. The doctrine of res judicata is a wholesome one which is applicable not merely to matters governed by the provisions of theCode of Civil Procedure but to all litigations. It proceeds on the principle that there should be no unnecessary litigation and whatever claims and defences are open to parties should all be put forward at the same time provided no confusion is likely to arise by so putting forward all such claimsWe are, therefore, of opinion that the question of overtime wages should be deemed to have been dealt with and disposed of by the Tribunal on whatever the basis of the claim for overtime wages may be12. The disputes between this company and its workers quite often come to this Court. The case in Bombay Gas Co. v. Shridhar Bhau (supra) is one such. The other cases are found in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, (1964) 3 S.C.R. 709 and Ramlanshan Jageshwar v. Bombay Gas Co. [1961-I L.L.J. 38]. If the workers are dissatisfied with any of the items in respect of which their claim has been rejected it is open to them to raise a fresh industrial dispute. The award has stood the test of time for twenty-five years, a very fare occurrence indeed these days.