Case: Unichem Laboratories Ltd Vs. The Workmen

of the Indian owned units have adopted the slab system. But whether these units have adopted or not, we have already indicated, that no distinction can be made between a purely local unit and a foreign unit doing business in India or an Indian unit doing business in collaboration with foreign concern. When once such units can be taken into account as comparable units, the pattern of dearness allowance obtaining therein can very well be considered to ascertain the system adopted by the industry as that will show the trend in the region. As pointed out above, at least 11 units referred to in Ex. DU-1 have adopted the system now introduced in the case of the appellant by the Tribunal. Under those circumstances, when such system is prevailing in the industry in the same region, it cannot be held that the Tribunal has committed any error in introducing a similar pattern in the case of the appellant. The slab system has been approved by this Court as will be seen by the decision in Greaves Cotton and Co. and others v. Their Workmen, [1964 - I L.L.J. 342]; (1964) 3 S.C.R. 362, and Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1969 - I L.L.J. 751]; (1969) 2 S.C.R. 463. Even in Bombay that such a pattern of dearness allowance, as the one introduced in the case of the appellant, is existing is seen by the decisions of this Court in Greaves Cotton and Co. and others v. Their Workmen (supra) and Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1967 - II L.L.J. 55]; (1967) 2 S.C.R. 463. No doubt the industries therein were not pharmaceutical units. But that such a system exists in Bombay region is clear from the above decision. 115. Mr. Tarkunde referred us to the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T. No. 411 of 1966) in Voltas Limited, Bombay v. The Workmen employed under them dated September 30, 1969, wherein the adoption of slab system has not been approved. On the other hand, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has drawn our attention to a number of awards of the Industrial Tribunal rendered during the years 1965 to 1968 wherein the slab system of dearness allowance has been adopted in Bombay region. It is only necessary to refer to the award in the case of May and Baker Limited, Bombay v. Its Workmen, because that is a pharmaceutical unit. The award was given in or about June 1967 and it is seen that the dearness allowance on the pattern now given by the Tribunal in respect of the appellant has been adopted. 116. We have already referred to the fact that in Ex. DU-1 it is seen that as many as 11 pharmaceutical units in Bombay region have adopted the pattern of granting dearness allowance on the slab system now incorporated in the present award. Though most of the units referred to therein could not be treated as units comparable with the appellant because of lack of full information regarding material factors, yet those concerns can be taken into account inasmuch as the system obtaining in those concerns will show that the slab system is not something new to the pharmaceutical units. We have already referred to the award in May and Baker Limited, Bombay v. Its Workmen. These facts clearly show that the scheme of dearness allowance provided in the award before us in respect of the appellant is not anything new. On the other hand, the Tribunal has only adopted the system prevailing in the region in respect of pharmaceutical units. 117. So far as the financial burden is concerned we have already referred to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Even on the basis that the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding on the assumption that 52 chemists are not covered by the reference, in our opinion, the additional burden that will be cast on the appellant can be easily borne by it. Therefore, we see no error in the scheme of dearness allowance introduced, in the case of the appellant, by the Tribunal. 118. The only other point that requires to be considered is in respect of the direction given by the Tribunal regarding the incentive bonus scheme in respect of which the appellant had given notice of change under S.9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We have already referred to the nature of the scheme that originally existed and the modification sought to be made by the appellant. We have also pointed out that the Tribunal has not accepted most of the recommendations made by Sri Tulpule, who was appointed as an assessor on the joint application of both the parties. The Tribunal has stated that it is desirable that a scheme is worked out, if possible by consent of parties for the purpose of protecting the interest of the workmen at the increased base performance index. 119. According to Mr. Tarkunde the Tribunal itself should have gone into the matter and evolved a scheme. No doubt, it would have been desirable if the Tribunal had actually evolved a scheme. But the Tribunal has stated that the necessary material for that purpose has not been made available and as such it has not been possible to device a scheme calculated to afford protection to the incentive earning of a workman at the raised base performance index. In fact, we also suggested to the counsel that the parties may consider the matter and submit a scheme for that purpose. But it was represented to us on February 9, 1972, by Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, that it has not been possible for the parties to arrive at an agreement in respect of that matter, at present. Therefore, there is nothing further that could be done by this Court in this regard and the result is that the observations made by the Tribunal in this regard will have full effect.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]27. The parties very hotly contested the question of dearness allowance as well as the pattern to be adopted. As there were different systems of dearness allowance for the operatives and the clerical and subordinate staff, the unions desired that the common scheme of dearness allowance on a slab system should be adopted. The Tribunal having regard to the decisions of this Court in Greaves Cotton and Co. and others v. Their Workmen, [1964 - I L.L.J. 342]; (1964) 5 S.C.R. 362, and Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1969 - I L.L.J. 751]; (1969) 2 S.C.R. 113, held that there was no justification for having two systems of dearness allowance, one for the operatives and the other for the members of the clerical and subordinate staff. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that all the employees should get the same dearness allowance irrespective of the fact whether they were operatives or members of the clerical and subordinate staff.