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

1. Six matters in dispute between the respondent, Hindusthan motors, Ltd., and their workmen were refereed to the second industrial tribunal, West Bengal. The first five were :(1) grades and scales of pay,(2) dearness allowance,(3) production bonus,(4) contract labour, and(5) casual Leave.2. The sixth was in respect of the termination of services of some workmen. The tribunal by its award decided that the workmen were not entitled to any relief as regards the third, forth, fifth and the sixth of these matters. On the question of grades and scales of pay the tribunal laid down several slabs of annual increments for theworkmen but refused to make any change in the rates of theworkmen. On the question of dearness allowance it fixed the same rates as fixed by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal award for the engineering concerns covered by its award but did not made any provision for any changes on account of the changes in the cost of living index. The tribunal refused to modify the production bonus scheme which in was already in operation in the concern an also to extend the Scheme to the plant engineering, master mechanic and inspection and supply and stores departments for which claim was made by the workmen. The workmens claim for abolition of contract Labour in some departments and their demand for ten days casual leave were also rejected. The workmen applied for special leave to appeal against the tribunals award on all these six matters. Special leave was however granted only in respect of the first five matters. At the hearing, the appeal was not pressed in respect of two matter, viz., the contract labour and the casual leave. It would be necessary, therefore, to examine the award only in respect of the first three matters, viz.,(1) grades and scales of pay,(2) dearness allowance, and(3) production bonus.3. The arguments before us regarding the grades and scales of pay have centered round the question whether the tribunal was justified in not applying to theworkers the grades and scales of pay awarded by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal. It has to be noticed that the respondent company was originally made a party to the order of reference to the Third Major Engineering Tribunal; but it got its name deleted from that reference by moving High Court on the ground that the provisions made by another industrial tribunal (sic) and its worker were at that time subsisting. At the hearing of the present reference the workmen appear to have contended that even thought the respondent is also an engineering concern it should; in view of its exceptional prosperity, pay wages at a higher rate than was fixed by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal for workmen in other engineering concerns. The present tribunal agreed that the respondent is an engineering concern and addressed itself to the question whether the grades and scales introduced by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal could reasonably be applied to this concern. It accepted however the respondents plea that in view of the numerous categories of the workmen of this concern no division in groups according to the skill was possible and so grades and scales of pay provided in the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal had to be modified. In making the modification it fixed the slabs and rates thus :"(1) The mazdoors and helpers will have an annual increment of 4 naye paise per day for two years after they have completed one year of service on the rate of Rs. 1.34 fixed by the award provided that they have improved in efficiency in respect of both nature and quality of the work.(2) Between the daily wage rates of Rs. 1.54 and Rs. 1.75 there will be a slab of 5 years with annual increments at the rate of 4 naye paise per day for 4 years and at the rate of 5 naye paise per day for the fifth year.(3) to (5) Between the dailyof Rs. 1.75 and Rs. 2 and between Rs. 2 and Rs. 2.25 and again between Rs. 2.25 and Rs. 2.50 there will be three slabs of 6 years each with annual increments at the rate of 4 naye paise per day for 5 years and at the rate of 5 naye paise per day for the sixth year.(6) to (10) The next daily wage rate is Rs. 2.75 and between this wage rate and Rs. 3 between Rs. 3 and Rs. 3.25, between Rs. 3.25 and Rs. 3.50 between Rs. 3.50 and Rs. 3.75 and between Rs. 3.75 and Rs. 4 there will be 5 slabs of 4 years each with annual increments at the rate of 6 naye paise per days for 3 years and at the rate of 7 naye paise per day for the forth year.(11) to (14) Between the daily wage rates of Rs. 4 to Rs. 4.25, between Rs. 4.25 and Rs. 4.50 between Rs. 4.50 ad Rs. 4.75 and between Rs. 4.75 and Rs. 5 there will be 4 slabs of 3 years each with annual increments at the rate of 8 naye paise per day for 2 years and at the rate of 9 naye paise per day for the third year."

Reasoning:
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.