Case: Workmen of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Management of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking

can be paid. The concerned workmen do not come under any of the categories. Mr. Chagla has not been able to satisfy us that contrary to Regulation No. 17 any workman is being paid over-time wages. Therefore, this contention also has to be rejected. 21. Coming to the question of conveyance allowance, we have already stated that the claim is for fixing Rs. 120/- per month for the Superintendents and Rs. 80/- p.m. for the Inspectors. With effect from November 1, 1955 the Delhi State Electricity Board had fixed the allowance for motor-car for certain categories of its employees ranging from Rs. 85/- to Rs. 125/- p.m. depending upon the mileage covered. Likewise allowance for maintenance of motor-cycles was allowed to certain categories of employees of the Board ranging from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 45/- per month depending upon the average mileage. The car allowance was raised from Rs. 85-125 to Rs. 150-200 in 1959 and further raised to Rs. 200-250 from July 1, 1963. On the other hand, the allowance payable to Superintendents was raised from Rs. 45/- to Rs. 60/- per month in 1959. The Inspectors were made eligible for the motor-cycle allowance for the first time in 1961 at Rs. 30/- per month. On April 10, 1964, the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking revised the conveyance allowance for cars and motor-cycles or scooters. The revised rates took effect from July 1, 1963. So far as the car allowance was concerned, it was increased to some officers to Rs. 250/- per month and in respect of certain other officers it was increased from the amount ranging from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 200/-. There were 25 officers governed by the car allowance. Admittedly, the car allowance which was in 1955 ranging from Rs. 85-125, was revised in 1964 at amounts ranging from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 250/-.In fact, there has been a steady increase from time to time. While increasing the car allowance in 1964, though the same order deals with the allowance for motor-cycles and scooters, no increase whatsoever was made for them. The allowance of Rs. 60/- given to the Superintendents in 1959 was retained even in 1964. Rs. 30/- given for the first time to the Inspectors in 1961 was retained at the same level in 1964. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the concerned workmen for an increase in the allowance on the ground that the order dated April 10, 1964 has fixed the conveyance allowance for motor-cycles and motor-cars on a rational basis and that any disturbance in the rates will have repercussions on other category of workmen. This is the sole reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the workmen. 22. Mr. Chagla is justified in his contention that the Tribunal has not considered the matter properly as it should have done. 23. Mr. G. B. Pai learned counsel for the respondent, no doubt, referred us to the written statement of the respondent filed before the Tribunal, wherein it is stated that when the order dated April 10, 1964 was passed, the cost of maintenance, repair charges, cost of fuel have all been taken into account. It is further stated that the Pay Commission had recommended certain scales of conveyance allowance to the officers of the Government as well as to the employees of the Central Public Works Department. As the order has fixed the conveyance allowance on a scientific basis, the counsel pointed out, that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the workmen, for increasing the conveyance allowance. 24. We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Pai. The Tribunal has, as we have already pointed out, given no other reason except the fact that if the rates in the order are disturbed in favour of one category of workmen, it will have repercussions on other categories of workmen. It may be that if the rates are altered in favour of one group of workmen, there may be claims from other workmen also. That by itself is not a valid reason, in our opinion, for rejecting the claim of the workmen. Mr. Pai also pointed out during the course of his arguments that as Delhi has expanded far and wide, the officers with cars have to travel longer distances and therefore an increase in the car allowance was justified. There was no material placed before the Tribunal by the respondent as to what additional trips the officers have to make over and above the trips that they used to make in 1955 and later on. Admittedly, the conveyance allowance for motor-cars have been steadily increased from 1955. The 1964 rates show that the increase is as much as 21/2 times in some cases in respect of motor-cars. If there is a justification for such an increase in respect of cars, there is also justification for giving additional allowance regarding motor-cycles and scooters. In the written statement the respondent has admitted that the break down in electricity is very frequent and that the Superintendents and Inspectors have to make more frequent visits. Having due regard to the increase in the cost of maintenance, fuel etc. which the respondent has itself taken note of in 1964 and the extra mileage that has to be covered, in our opinion, the Superintendents and Inspectors must be given an increase of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 12.50 per month respectively over the present rate of allowance given to them in the order of 1964. Accordingly, the Superintendents will get Rs. 85/- per month and the Inspectors will get Rs. 42.50 per month. These workmen will be entitled to get the allowance at this rate retrospectively from the date of reference, namely, April 1, 1966. The excess amount due to them as per our Judgment from April 1, 1966 upto March 31, 1972 will be paid by the respondent within three months from today. From April 1, 1972 these workmen will get the conveyance allowance at the rate fixed by us.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]12. Mr. G. B. Pai is well founded in his contention that the appellants have nowhere raised the point that the Regulations are not saved by Section 516 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act13. As the first contention that the Regulations are not saved by Section 516 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, was taken by Mr. Chagla for the first time and that without any previous notice to the respondent, we did not permit him to pursue that contention15. From the definition of "factory" it is clear that it must be a premises where a manufacturing process is carried on.According to Mr. Chagla, the manufacturing process that is carried on by the undertaking is that of generating, transforming and transmitting electricity power. Though electricity is generated in the power station still to reduce the voltage and do other incidental acts for the purpose of ensuring supply of power to consumers, thes and the zonal stations are an integral part of the power station. That is, according to Mr. Chagla, the entire process of generating, transforming and transmitting power, though these items of work may be done in different places, namely, power stations,s and the zonal stations, must be considered to form part of a single manufacturing process in which the workmen concerned are. The fact that some of the workmen are in the power station and the rest are either in thes or the zonal stations will not make any difference in this respect, as all of them take part in the manufacturing process. Admittedly, the power station is treated as factory and it follows that these two units, the16. No doubt,Mr. Chagla referred us the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corpn., AIR 1961 Cal, where it was held that the power stations or generating stations and connecteds and other ancillary establishments are to be considered as one unit. But this conclusion was arrived at by the learned Judges when construing the expression "employee" under Section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. A reading of that definition clearly shows that its ambit was very wide. Therefore this decision does not assist Mr. ChaglaWe are conscious that the question whether a particular unit is a factory has to be decided by applying the ingredients contained in the definition of "factory" under the Factories Act and therefore, the fact that a witness, however, high placed he may be, says that a particular unit is not a factory cannot be conclusive on the matter. We have, after applying the necessary test held that thes and the zonal stations are not factories and in that connection the evidence of M. W. 1 becomes relevant. From the above discussion it follows that the second contention also fails20. Regarding the third contention, though we have great sympathy, when the grievance of the concerned workmen is that they are not paid when they are asked to work, no relief can be granted to them. Their service conditions are governed by the Regulations framed under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, Regulation No. 17 clearly specifies that persons to whomovertimewages can be paid. The concerned workmen do not come under any of the categories. Mr. Chagla has not been able to satisfy us that contrary to Regulation No. 17 any workman is being paidovertimewages. Therefore, this contention also has to be rejected23. Mr. G. B. Pai learned counsel for the respondent, no doubt, referred us to the written statement of the respondent filed before the Tribunal, wherein it is stated that when the order dated April 10, 1964 was passed, the cost of maintenance, repair charges, cost of fuel have all been taken into account. It is further stated that the Pay Commission had recommended certain scales of conveyance allowance to the officers of the Government as well as to the employees of the Central Public Works Department. As the order has fixed the conveyance allowance on a scientific basis, the counsel pointed out, that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the workmen, for increasing the conveyance allowance24. We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Pai. The Tribunal has, as we have already pointed out, given no other reason except the fact that if the rates in the order are disturbed in favour of one category of workmen, it will have repercussions on other categories of workmen. It may be that if the rates are altered in favour of one group of workmen, there may be claims from other workmen also. That by itself is not a valid reason, in our opinion, for rejecting the claim of the workmen. Mr. Pai also pointed out during the course of his arguments that as Delhi has expanded far and wide, the officers with cars have to travel longer distances and therefore an increase in the car allowance was justified. There was no material placed before the Tribunal by the respondent as to what additional trips the officers have to make over and above the trips that they used to make in 1955 and later on. Admittedly, the conveyance allowance fors have been steadily increased from 1955. The 1964 rates show that the increase is as much as 21/2 times in some cases in respect of. If there is a justification for such an increase in respect of cars, there is also justification for giving additional allowance regardings and scooters. In the written statement the respondent has admitted that the break down in electricity is very frequent and that the Superintendents and Inspectors have to make more frequent visits. Having due regard to the increase in the cost of maintenance, fuel etc. which the respondent has itself taken note of in 1964 and the extra mileage that has to be covered, in our opinion, the Superintendents and Inspectors must be given an increase of Rs. 25/and Rs. 12.50 per month respectively over the present rate of allowance given to them in the order of 1964. Accordingly, the Superintendents will get Rs. 85/per month and the Inspectors will get Rs. 42.50 per month. These workmen will be entitled to get the allowance at this rate retrospectively from the date of reference, namely, April 1, 1966. The excess amount due to them as per our Judgment from April 1, 1966 upto March 31, 1972 will be paid by the respondent within three months from today. From April 1, 1972 these workmen will get the conveyance allowance at the rate fixed by us.