Case: Bombay Gas Co. Ltd Vs. Shridhar Bhau Parab

raising a question of law subsequently. It, therefore, held that it was open to it to consider the question whether the respondent was governed by the Factories Act. It then went on to consider that question and held that the respondent was governed by the Factories Act and directed payment of a certain amount as delayed and deducted wages and also awarded a small compensation.6. In the present appeal before us the learned Attorney-General has relied on the award of 1953; but his contention is some what different from what was urged before the Authority. He contends that as the award of 1953 is still in force and has not been terminated under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the application before the Authority was not maintainable and the Authority had no jurisdiction to decide it. It is further contended that in any case the decision of the Authority that the respondent was governed by S. 59of the Factories Act is incorrect.7. The first question therefore is whether the Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter in view of the fact that the award of 1953 is still in force and has not been terminated. The question whether these workmen should get overtime wages in the same way as workers governed by the Factories Act was considered in the reference which resulted in the award of 1953. If these workmen had been governed by S. 59 of the Factories Act, there would have been no difficulty and the tribunal would have given an award as desired in their favour. But before the tribunal it was conceded that these workmen were not covered by S. 59 of 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. The tribunal considered the matter and naturally held on the basis of the concession made before it that these workmen were not covered by the Factories Act. It then considered the demand on merit and rejected it except that dearness allowance was also ordered to be paid in addition to extra basic wages for work done on Sundays falling within the meter reading period of these workmen at the end of the month. In effect therefore the decision of the tribunal was that these workmen were not covered by the Factories Act and were only entitled to a certain concession which it granted them. That award is still in force as it has not been terminated under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Dispute Act. So long therefore as that award remains in force it must be held that these workmen, including the respondent are not governed by the Factories Act and are not entitled to the benefits thereof and can only claim what the tribunal awarded them in 1953. It cannot be disputed that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the question referred to it and though in the present case its decision that these workmen were not governed by the Factories Act was based on a concession it could have come to same decision even without the concession. In these circumstances so long as the award of 1953 remains in force we cannot see how these workmen can go to the Authority and say that part of their overtime wages has been delayed or deducted when they have all along been paid in accordance with the award of 1953, which in effect is the contract governing the matter. It would be different if the conditions of service of these workmen had changed since the award of 1953, for in that event it may be that on a change of conditions of service a case may be made out for reconsideration of the question whether these workmen were entitled to the benefits of the Factories Act. But there is nothing on the record to show that there has been any change in the conditions of service since that award. Learned counsel for the respondent told us that there was some change in the conditions of service of these workmen at the end of 1956 or the beginning of 1957 and since then they were required to attend the Factory. As to that we say nothing because the record is silent on the point. But even if it be so, this change in the conditions of service cannot affect the present claim which is for a period from November 1955 to October 1956. So far therefore as the present claim is concerned the award which negatived the claim of these workmen (including the respondent) stands as a bar and we cannot see how in the face of that award the respondent can ask the Authority to over look that award which has not yet been terminated and hold that he is governed by the Factories Act. So long therefore as the award stands and so long as there is no proof that there has been a change in the conditions of service after the award necessitating reconsideration of the matter, the claim of the respondent for delayed or deducted wages when he has all along been paid in accordance with that award cannot be entertained and decided by the Authority. If this were permissible it would mean that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act would be practically sitting in appeal on awards of industrial tribunals and upsetting them. This it cannot do so long as an award of an industrial tribunal which had jurisdiction to decide the matter remains in force. We are therefore of opinion that the appeal must be allowed on the ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and decide it. It is therefore not necessary to consider the other point raised by the learned Attorney-General, namely, whether the respondent was in fact a worker at the relevant time under the Factories Act.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]e first question therefore is whether the Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter in view of the fact that the award of 1953 is still in force and has not been terminated.The question whether these workmen should get overtime wages in the same way as workers governed by the Factories Act was considered in the reference which resulted in the award of 1953. If these workmen had been governed by S. 59 of the Factories Act, there would have been no difficulty and the tribunal would have given an award as desired in their favour. But before the tribunal it was conceded that these workmen were not covered by S. 59 of 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. The tribunal considered the matter and naturally held on the basis of the concession made before it that these workmen were not covered by the Factories Act. It then considered the demand on merit and rejected it except that dearness allowance was also ordered to be paid in addition to extra basic wages for work done on Sundays falling within the meter reading period of these workmen at the end of the month. In effect therefore the decision of the tribunal was that these workmen were not covered by the Factories Act and were only entitled to a certain concession which it granted them. That award is still in force as it has not been terminated under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Dispute Act. So long therefore as that award remains in force it must be held that these workmen, including the respondent are not governed by the Factories Act and are not entitled to the benefits thereof and can only claim what the tribunal awarded them in 1953. It cannot be disputed that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the question referred to it and though in the present case its decision that these workmen were not governed by the Factories Act was based on a concession it could have come to same decision even without the concession. In these circumstances so long as the award of 1953 remains in force we cannot see how these workmen can go to the Authority and say that part of their overtime wages has been delayed or deducted when they have all along been paid in accordance with the award of 1953, which in effect is the contract governing the matter. It would be different if the conditions of service of these workmen had changed since the award of 1953, for in that event it may be that on a change of conditions of service a case may be made out for reconsideration of the question whether these workmen were entitled to the benefits of the Factories Act. But there is nothing on the record to show that there has been any change in the conditions of service since that award. Learned counsel for the respondent told us that there was some change in the conditions of service of these workmen at the end of 1956 or the beginning of 1957 and since then they were required to attend the Factory. As to that we say nothing because the record is silent on the point. But even if it be so, this change in the conditions of service cannot affect the present claim which is for a period from November 1955 to October 1956. So far therefore as the present claim is concerned the award which negatived the claim of these workmen (including the respondent) stands as a bar and we cannot see how in the face of that award the respondent can ask the Authority to over look that award which has not yet been terminated and hold that he is governed by the Factories Act. So long therefore as the award stands and so long as there is no proof that there has been a change in the conditions of service after the award necessitating reconsideration of the matter, the claim of the respondent for delayed or deducted wages when he has all along been paid in accordance with that award cannot be entertained and decided by the Authority. If this were permissible it would mean that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act would be practically sitting in appeal on awards of industrial tribunals and upsetting them. This it cannot do so long as an award of an industrial tribunal which had jurisdiction to decide the matter remains in force. We are therefore of opinion that the appeal must be allowed on the ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and decide it. It is therefore not necessary to consider the other point raised by the learnednamely, whether the respondent was in fact a worker at the relevant time under the Factories Act.