Case: Workmen of Hindusthan Motors Vs. Hindusthan Motors and Another

it is not said that any difficulty has been experienced by the concerns covered by the award in working the scheme given in the award. We cannot see therefore why the respondent concern should have any difficulty in applying this very scheme.6. On behalf of the respondents it is argued that in fact the grades and scales awarded by the present tribunal are more favourable to the workmen. It might be that for some workmen who are very highly skilled the present scheme may result in better earnings. By and large, however, the grades and scales of pay introduced by the present award is much less favourable to the workmen. For such different treatment for the workmen of this particular engineering concern while workmen of the large number of engineering concerns were covered be the Third Major Engineering Tribunal award all working in the same region - in the neighbourhood of Calcutta and Howrah - we cannot find any justification. There can be no dispute that it is ordinarily desirable to have as much uniformity as possible in the wage-scales of different concerns of the same industry working in the same region. It may not aways be possible to attain this object because of the different financial capacities of different concerns. Where however no such obstacle is present, industrial adjudication always tries to secure the same wage-rates for the different concerns in the same industry in the same region. On the one hand this tends to the maintenance of industrial peace in the entire region and on the other it puts the different companies of the industry on more or less equal footing in their production struggle. The financial condition of the respondent company is quite satisfactory and nothing has been said before us to justify even remotely a conclusion that this company - as compared to numerous other companies - large and small - which were covered by the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal - is unable to pay what those other concerns have to pay to their workmen. But, then, says learned advocate for the respondents, the classification of workmen in the groups as provided in the Third Major Engineering Tribunal award would itself cause discontent among its workmen. Learned counsel argues that there may be a turner who is earning Rs. 3 per day; and another who is earning Rs. 5 per day. One who is earning Rs. 5 would go into group A of the scheme while the one who is drawing Rs. 3 will go into group B. The workman who goes into group B will claim that as he is also a turner and as much a skilled workman as the other turner, he should also be put into group A. If this is not done, there will be discontent. Similar difficulty, it is suggested, will rise in the other categories of workmen. We do not think there is much scope for any such controversies as apprehended by the learned counsel. Just as at present the turner having greater skill and experience receives pay at a higher rate and that does not create any discontent in another turner who because of his comparatively lower skill and experience gets Rs. 3 per day, so also it is reasonable to think that the turner who is put in group B in view of his present scale of pay will not grumble the placing of another turner with a higher rate of pay in the next group. It may be that in individual cases some friction may result in the working of this grouping scheme. It is reasonable to think, however, that when all the workmen together want this grouping as in their best interests the risk to industrial peace by this grouping will be very little.We are not satisfied that the respondent concern will have any difficulty in applying the wage scheme as provided by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal and think it reasonable that this should be made applicable to the respondent concern also.7. On the question of dearness allowance the appellants grievance is that while accepting the rate for dearness allowance fixed by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal the present tribunal omitted to provide a sliding scale for such allowance. The direction of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal on this point was that the dearness allowance will be liable to be increased or decreased on the basis of Re. 1 for every five points in case of rise and fail of the cost of living index (from 364); the position will be reviewed at the end of each financial year. The whole purpose of dearness allowance being to neutralize a portion of the increase in the cost of living, it should ordinarily be on a sliding scale and provide for an increase on rise in the cost of living and a decrease on a fall in the cost of living. No reason has been given in the present award why this ordinary practice has not been followed. We think therefore that in the matter of dearness allowance also the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal should be applied to these workmen not only as regards the rates but also as regards the sliding scales.On the question of production bonus the appellants wanted to contend that there is no reason for not applying this scheme for not applying this scheme for giving production bonus to the workmen in the plant engineering, master mechanic and inspection and supply and stores departments. Mr. Chari, however, concedes that no materials were placed before the tribunal to enable it to devise any scheme for production bonus. It does not even appear that any demand was made in the written statement for production bonus being extended to departments where it was not in force. As no case for extension of the incentive scheme to other departments was made at all in the written statement, it is not possible to give the appellants any relief in this matter.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]On turning to that award we find that there also an argument was advanced on behalf of the engineering concerns that classification of workmen with reference to skill could not be conveniently made without the aid of technical expert bodies and that the tribunal should not embark upon the task of dividing the workmen in different groups. The Third Engineering Tribunal appreciated the force of the contention made on behalf of the companies about the difficulty of scientific classification of workmen but decided, in our opinion, rightly that that would be no reason to avoid the task altogether and adopted a classification of the workmen into four groups, A, B, C and D, and fixed the pay scales and grades of theseThis award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal was made on 27 June, 1959 and it is not said that any difficulty has been experienced by the concerns covered by the award in working the scheme given in the award. We cannot see therefore why the respondent concern should have any difficulty in applying this verycan be no dispute that it is ordinarily desirable to have as much uniformity as possible in theof different concerns of the same industry working in the same region. It may not aways be possible to attain this object because of the different financial capacities of different concerns. Where however no such obstacle is present, industrial adjudication always tries to secure the samefor the different concerns in the same industry in the same region. On the one hand this tends to the maintenance of industrial peace in the entire region and on the other it puts the different companies of the industry on more or less equal footing in their production struggle. The financial condition of the respondent company is quite satisfactory and nothing has been said before us to justify even remotely a conclusion that this companyas compared to numerous other companieslarge and smallwhich were covered by the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunalis unable to pay what those other concerns have to pay to theirdo not think there is much scope for any such controversies as apprehended by the learned counsel. Just as at present the turner having greater skill and experience receives pay at a higher rate and that does not create any discontent in another turner who because of his comparatively lower skill and experience gets Rs. 3 per day, so also it is reasonable to think that the turner who is put in group B in view of his present scale of pay will not grumble the placing of another turner with a higher rate of pay in the next group. It may be that in individual cases some friction may result in the working of this grouping scheme. It is reasonable to think, however, that when all the workmen together want this grouping as in their best interests the risk to industrial peace by this grouping will be very little.We are not satisfied that the respondent concern will have any difficulty in applying the wage scheme as provided by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal and think it reasonable that this should be made applicable to the respondent concern also.On the question of dearness allowance the appellants grievance is that while accepting the rate for dearness allowance fixed by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal the present tribunal omitted to provide a sliding scale for such allowance.The direction of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal on this point was that the dearness allowance will be liable to be increased or decreased on the basis of Re. 1 for every five points in case of rise and fail of the cost of living index (from 364); the position will be reviewed at the end of each financial year. The whole purpose of dearness allowance being to neutralize a portion of the increase in the cost of living, it should ordinarily be on a sliding scale and provide for an increase on rise in the cost of living and a decrease on a fall in the cost of living. No reason has been given in the present award why this ordinary practice has not been followed. We think therefore that in the matter of dearness allowance also the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal should be applied to these workmen not only as regards the rates but also as regards the slidingdoes not even appear that any demand was made in the written statement for production bonus being extended to departments where it was not in force.As no case for extension of the incentive scheme to other departments was made at all in the written statement, it is not possible to give the appellants any relief in this matter.