Case: Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited Vs. Its Workmen and Another

respondents. Even so, in 1956 the respondents seemed to demand that the said classifications should be revised and the wage up-graded.3. It also appears that when the matter was discussed before the tribunal at the present enquiry and more particularly when the tribunal visited the factory in the company of the appellants lawyer Sri Mehta and the respondents representative Sri Ram Desai, both of them agreed "that the nature of skill of the various categories would be as per the first award." The tribunal then inspected the factory and ultimately made its award. During the course of its inspection, the tribunal found that there were no designations like the assistant mason, assistant fitter, assistant moulder and others specified by it in Para. 16 of its award, and so, it created categories of certain assistants in respect of the job done by mason, fitter, moulder, hand welder, turner, shaper, transformer maker, carpenter, machine welder and machine driver. The tribunal then but the different employees in the three respective categories and revised the wages payable to them. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court.Sri Shroff for the appellant has attacked the award only on one narrow point. He contends that the tribunal has committed an obvious error in changing the classes of four categories of employees, namely, mason, welder, carpenter and moulder. He also argues that in creating the post of an assistant moulder, the tribunal has overlooked that fact that there is nobody who is known as assistant moulder in the appellants concern and who satisfies the requirements of the said office. In regard to the first four categories of employees, it is not disputed that the present award has made a substantial change and has differed from the earlier award. Under the earlier award, masons other than those who were skilled were placed in the category of semi-skilled and only masons who worked on Hume steel special were put under the category of skilled employees. Indu Chottu was treated as a special case and was put under the skilled category. Under the present award all masons are put in the skilled category. In regard to the welder, it was only welders who were working in H. S. S. and W. shops that were skilled under the earlier award and the rest were semi-skilled. Under the present award, hand welders, machine welders and gas welders are all put in the skilled category. Carpenters other than skilled were treated as semi-skilled under the earlier award and carpenters, excepting workshop stores, were treated as skilled. Under the present award, all carpenters are put under the category of skilled workmen. Moulder under the earlier award was not under semi-skilled category whether it was a case of a moulder H.P., R.C.C., pole lining and our-coating. A mazdoor working under a moulder was treated as unskilled. Under the present award, all moulders are put under the skilled category. Sri Shroff contends that in changing the categories of these workmen, the tribunal through error has failed to notice the fact that it was common ground between the parties before the tribunal that the classification and the categories prescribed by the earlier award had not to be changed and the only question which the tribunal was asked to decide in the present proceedings was one in regard to the revision of wages payable to the employees in the respective categories and classes.It seems to us that the grievance made by the appellant is well-founded. There is no doubt that before the tribunal, parties had agreed to take the skill of the various categories as it was prescribed by the earlier award and it has in fact observed that in view of the admission of the parties regarding classification. "the categories and classification of the respective employees had to be take as it was specified in annexure A, " annexure A containing the categories and the classification of the respective employees made in the earlier award. It is to be regretted that the tribunal proceeded to change the classification in respect of four categories of employees to which we have just referred, overlooking the fact that by virtue of the agreement between the parties, it was not competent to the tribunal to adopt such a course.4. Sri Sowani for the respondents attempted to argue that the tribunal has created a category of assistants, and so, it thought that it would be anomalous to treat an assistant mason, an assistant welder, an assistant carpenter or an assistant moulder as semi-skilled, and the mason, the welder, the carpenter and the moulder also as semi-skilled. That may perhaps explain why the tribunal changed the classification in respect of the four categories of employees. In the present appeal, no grievance is made by the appellant in regard to the creation of certain assistant in the category of semi-skilled employees, and so, we are not called upon to consider whether the tribunal could have created this class of assistants, but it seems to us that the tribunal was not justified in promoting the four categories of employees into the skilled class in a manner which was inconsistent with the classification adopted by the earlier award. That is why we must hold that in regard to the mason, the welder the carpenter and the moulder, the classification must be deemed to be the same as was adopted by the earlier award. In regard to the assistant moulder, the appellants grievance is that there is no person who answers the description of that office. We propose to express no opinion on this part of the appellants case. If there are employees who can be regarded as assistant moulders under the award, their rights will not be affected, because the appellant has not seriously contended that the tribunal was not competent to create a class of assistant moulders, just as it has not been argued that a class of assistant masons, assistant fitter and other assistants could not have been created.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]f contends that in changing the categories of these workmen, the tribunal through error has failed to notice the fact that it was common ground between the parties before the tribunal that the classification and the categories prescribed by the earlier award had not to be changed and the only question which the tribunal was asked to decide in the present proceedings was one in regard to the revision of wages payable to the employees in the respective categories andseems to us that the grievance made by the appellant isThere is no doubt that before the tribunal, parties had agreed to take the skill of the various categories as it was prescribed by the earlier award and it has in fact observed that in view of the admission of the parties regarding classification. "the categories and classification of the respective employees had to be take as it was specified in annexure A, " annexure A containing the categories and the classification of the respective employees made in the earlier award. It is to be regretted that the tribunal proceeded to change the classification in respect of four categories of employees to which we have just referred, overlooking the fact that by virtue of the agreement between the parties, it was not competent to the tribunal to adopt such a course.Sri Sowani for the respondents attempted to argue that the tribunal has created a category of assistants, and so, it thought that it would be anomalous to treat an assistant mason, an assistant welder, an assistant carpenter or an assistant moulder asand the mason, the welder, the carpenter and the moulder also asThat may perhaps explain why the tribunal changed the classification in respect of the four categories of employees. In the present appeal, no grievance is made by the appellant in regard to the creation of certain assistant in the category ofemployees, and so, we are not called upon to consider whether the tribunal could have created this class of assistants, but it seems to us that the tribunal was not justified in promoting the four categories of employees into the skilled class in a manner which was inconsistent with the classification adopted by the earlier award. That is why we must hold that in regard to the mason, the welder the carpenter and the moulder, the classification must be deemed to be the same as was adopted by the earlier award. In regard to the assistant moulder, the appellants grievance is that there is no person who answers the description of that office. We propose to express no opinion on this part of the appellants case. If there are employees who can be regarded as assistant moulders under the award, their rights will not be affected, because the appellant has not seriously contended that the tribunal was not competent to create a class of assistant moulders, just as it has not been argued that a class of assistant masons, assistant fitter and other assistants could not have been created.