Case: Precision Bearings India Ltd Vs. Baroda Mazdoor Sabha And Anr

in a; phased manner. Mr. Gokhale submits with some justification that this was purely a management function and the Tribunal should have taken the figures as furnished by the management in making reserve&for replacement costs. We have, however, seen that although a substantial sum was kept as reserve towards the replacement costs, only a fraction of it was actually utilised. The company, therefore, can-not make any grievance about the manner in which the Tribunal has, dealt with this aspect. Mr. Garg, on behalf of the respondents, also drew our attention to paragraph 4 of the companys written statement (page 62, Volume 1) where after having referred to certain offers made by it the company was prepared to the "increase of about Rs. 15 lacs in the employee cost in the very first year. . . . . .We find that the Tribunal has exhaustively gone into the wholes matter with care and kept in view the five principles laid down by this Court in the Bengal Chemical &Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen([1969] 2 S.C.R. 113.), the 5th one being additional financial burden which dearness allowance would impose upon the employer and his ability for bear such burden. We are unable to find any infirmity in the Tribunal dealing with the point of the financial capacity of the employer to bear the burden. The Tribunal finally observed as follows :-"On a careful consideration of all the relevant factors, in my opinion, the dearness allowance paid to the PBI (Precision Bearings India) workmen at the minimum level of basic pay from Rs. 26-upto Rs. 100-should be from 80 per cent, of the textile D.A. to 89 per cent, of the textile D.A. phased over a period of three years, The dearness allowance in the higher pay scale of R s. 101-to Rs. 200should be 40 per cent and. in the still higher slab of Rs. 201 and above, should be 20 per cent, the percentage for the higher two slabs remaining the same". The 40 per cent and 20 per cent of the basic wages in the higher slab s were in addition to the Ahmedabad Textile Dearness Allowance granted in the award. This takes us to the second objection of Mr. Gokhale. 6. It is submitted that in the charter of demands of the union there were two specific demands with regard to dearness allowance. These were as follows:-"1: 1. It is demanded that the existing minimum dearness allowance of Rs. 146/- should be modified and that all the workers including workers known as staff should be paid minimum dearness allowance at the rate of full dearness allowance that is being paid to Textile workers at Ahmedabad, i.e. 100% of Ahmedabad Textile rate.1: 2 With the above minimum dearness allowance the workers and workers known as staff should be further continued the higher dearness allowance as under- Below Rs. 1 00 pay-100% Ahmedabad Textile Dearness Allowance. Pay range between Rs. 100 to Rs. 200-100% Ahmedabad Textile DA+40% of basic Pay above Rs. 200/-100% Ahmedabad Textile DA+ 20% + of basic." 7. Even though the demand for dearness allowance was as above, the State Government referred the dispute only in the form set out at the outset. The Government did not entertain the claim of dearness allowance in addition to the 100% D.A. paid to the workers of the cotton textile mills at Ahmedabad. In other words, while the claim of the union was Ahmedabad Textile D.A. plus, the Government did not entertain the dispute between the parties in that form. We find great force in the above submission of Mr. Gokhale. The Tribunal in view of the content of the dispute referred to it had no jurisdiction in this reference to grant anything more then 100% of the Ahmedabad Textile D.A. on the outside. Since, the Tribunal after having given appropriate consideration to all aspects of the matter granted varying percentage from 80% to 89% phased in a particular way, it had virtually rejected the unions claim for 100% of the Textile D.A. Having done so, there was no scope for allowing to the higher brackets of wage earners in addition 40% and 20% of basic wages as dearness allowance. This part of the award is, therefore, beyond the scope, of the reference and must be quashed which we hereby do. If the Government at a future time intends to entertain a dispute of this nature with regard to higher brackets of wage earners that will be a different dispute but such a claim could not be entertained by the Tribunal in the present reference.We may observe that during the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal the clerical and the supervisory staff seem to have withdrawn from the reference and even an application was filed by some of them before the Tribunal to confine the dispute a s pertaining to the, manual and technical workers. The Tribunal however, did not accede to this request and proceeded on the footing that all the members of the-staff were included in the reference. 8. We should not be taken to suggest that the 4 0% and 20% plus is either wrong or excessive by way of high cost allowance. Indeed, we even felt that the lowest bracket upto Rs. 100/- needed full neutralisation of the rise in the cost of living as has been held in Killick Nixon Limited v. Killick &Allied Companies Employees Union. (1) Nor do we fail to see the force of Shri Gargs submission that social justice perspectives being integral to industrial jurisprudence. the high cost allowance as a component of D.A. is not impermissible in principle. It is a legitimate item. But we disallow because there is I deliberate omission to make a reference, of that item and so, falls outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. That is why we have expressly observed that such a dispute may well be referred by Government, if it considers fit, and this decision will not bar such a course. 9.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]We have, however, seen that although a substantial sum was kept as reserve towards the replacement costs, only a fraction of it was actually utilised. The company, therefore, can-not make any grievance about the manner in which the Tribunal has, dealt with this aspect.Mr. Garg, on behalf of the respondents, also drew our attention to paragraph 4 of the companys written statement (page 62, Volume 1) where after having referred to certain offers made by it the company was prepared to the "increase of about Rs. 15 lacs in the employee cost in the very first year. . . . ..Wefind that the Tribunal has exhaustively gone into the wholes matter with care and kept in view the five principles laid down by this Court in the Bengal Chemical &Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen([1969] 2 S.C.R. 113.), the 5th one being additional financial burden which dearness allowance would impose upon the employer and his ability for bear such burden. We are unable to find any infirmity in the Tribunal dealing with the point of the financial capacity of the employer to bear the burdenEven though the demand for dearness allowance was as above, the State Government referred the dispute only in the form set out at the outset. The Government did not entertain the claim of dearness allowance in addition to the 100% D.A. paid to the workers of the cotton textile mills at Ahmedabad. In other words, while the claim of the union was Ahmedabad Textile D.A. plus, the Government did not entertain the dispute between the parties in that form. We find great force in the above submission of Mr. Gokhale. The Tribunal in view of the content of the dispute referred to it had no jurisdiction in this reference to grant anything more then 100% of the Ahmedabad Textile D.A. on the outside. Since, the Tribunal after having given appropriate consideration to all aspects of the matter granted varying percentage from 80% to 89% phased in a particular way, it had virtually rejected the unions claim for 100% of the Textile D.A. Having done so, there was no scope for allowing to the higher brackets of wage earners in addition 40% and 20% of basic wages as dearness allowance. This part of the award is, therefore, beyond the scope, of the reference and must be quashed which we hereby do. If the Government at a future time intends to entertain a dispute of this nature with regard to higher brackets of wage earners that will be a different dispute but such a claim could not be entertained by the Tribunal in the presente mayobserve that during the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal the clerical and the supervisory staff seem to have withdrawn from the reference and even an application was filed by some of them before the Tribunal to confine the dispute a s pertaining to the, manual and technical workers. The Tribunal however, did not accede to this request and proceeded on the footing that all the members of the-staff were included in the referenceWe should not be taken to suggest that the 4 0% and 20% plus is either wrong or excessive by way of high cost allowance. Indeed, we even felt that the lowest bracket upto Rs. 100/- needed full neutralisation of the rise in the cost of living as has been held in Killick Nixon Limited v. Killick &Allied Companies Employees Union. (1) Nor do we fail to see the force of Shri Gargs submission that social justice perspectives being integral to industrial jurisprudence. the high cost allowance as a component of D.A. is not impermissible in principle. It is a legitimate item. But we disallow because there is I deliberate omission to make a reference, of that item and so, falls outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. That is why we have expressly observed that such adisputemaywell be referred by Government, if it considers fit, and this decision will not bar such a courseWe have, however, seen that although a substantial sum was kept as reserve towards the replacement costs, only a fraction of it was actually utilised. The company, therefore,t make any grievance about the manner in which the Tribunal has, dealt with this aspectWe findthat the Tribunal has exhaustively gone into the wholes matter with care and kept in view the five principles laid down by this Court in the Bengal Chemical &Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen([1969] 2 S.C.R. 113.), the 5th one being additional financial burden which dearness allowance would impose upon the employer and his ability for bear such burden. We are unable to find any infirmity in the Tribunal dealing with the point of the financial capacity of the employer to bear theburden.The Tribunal finally observed as follows