Case: Bombay Gas Company Limited Vs. Jagannath Pandurang and Others

2. The 118 respondents are workmen of the appellant-company working in different departments of the companys works. Respondents 1 to 14 are Syphon Pumpers. They filed 14 applications before the Additional Authority under S.15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming overtime wages for the period February 1957 to January, 1958. Respondents 15 to 80 are mains workers. They filed 66 applications before the same authority claiming overtime wages for the period December, 1956 to November, 1957. Respondents 81 to 118 filed 38 applications before the Third Additional Authority claiming wages for weekly off days. They belonged to the mains, heating appliances and fitting departments. They had joined the appellant company after 1948. The relevance of the reference to their having become workers of the company after 1948 will become clear when we deal with the facts of this case later3. Before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act the company contended that all the claims were barred under an award of the Industrial Tribunal in Ref. No. 54 of 1949, which was made on 30-3-1950 and published on 11-5-1959. The Authority held that (1) the claims of the booster attendants for wages for overtime work and weekly off days were covered by the award, (2) the claims of applicants other than booster attendants were not covered by the award, and (3) the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act was not applicable to them, and dismissed the applications of respondents 1 to 80. The applications made by respondents 81 to 118 were allowed by the Third Additional Authority holding that the award was no bar to those applications and that the provisions of the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act were applicable4. Appeals were filed by respondents 1 to 80 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. The appellant-company filed an appeal against the judgment in the applications of respondents 81 to 118. The Court of Small causes dealt with the appeals filed by the workmen as well as the appeal filed by the company and by a common judgment held that the claims of workers for overtime wages and wages for weekly off days were barred by the award. The workmens appeals were therefore, dismissed and the companys appeal was allowed. It was, however, held that the appellant-company was a commercial establishment within the meaning of that term under the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act5. All the workmen filed a writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, challenging the judgment of the Court of Small Causes. The High Court held that the claims of the respondents were not barred by the award and remanded the applications of respondents 1 to 80 to the Authority under the Payment of Wages for ascertaining and decreeing the amount. As regards, respondents 81 to 118 the judgment of the Third Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was restored.

Reasoning:
It would not be correct, therefore, to hold that they would be entitled to be paid separately for the weekly day off. It must be presumed that their scales of pay were the same as for the workmen who were working before 1948 also. There was no averment to the contrary. They cannot therefore, be allowed an extra benefit which would not be available to the same category of workmen who were working under the employer since before 19489. The High Court seems to have been of the impression that these workmen were entitled to be paid for the days off either under the award or under S.18(3) of the Bombay shops & Establishments Act. It seems to have assumed that there was a scale of wages for weekly off days under the award. That this is an obvious mistakeWe cannot, therefore, agree with the respondents that the sentences at the end of paragraph 126 to the following effect :I, however, recommend that where overtime work is given to workers not covered by the Factories Act, the rate should at least be the single basic wage plus dearness allowance. I do not, however, desire to give any general directions without knowing the nature of the workWould cover these cases. Demand No. 12 is in respect of all workers of the company. The specific case of workers in the mains department has been dealt with and rejected; so also in the case of coke supply coolies and motor drivers. The workmen concerned here being all workmen of the mains department, the question of their being paid overtime wages under the provisions of the award does not ariseIn the present case also the question under the Factories Act had been considered but not the question whether they are entitled to overtime wages under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. We consider that the workmen could and ought to have raised the question that even if they were not entitled to claim overtime wages at the same rate as payable to workers governed by the Factories Act, they should at least be paid the same rate rate as those payable to persons governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The workers neither put forward the contention that they were entitled to the benefit of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act nor even that on considerations similar to those applicable to the persons governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. They should also be paid overtime wages under the provisions of that Act. Incidentally it shows that the question as to whether the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act is applicable to these workmen has been raised for the first time in these proceedings. The doctrine of res judicata is a wholesome one which is applicable not merely to matters governed by the provisions of theCode of Civil Procedure but to all litigations. It proceeds on the principle that there should be no unnecessary litigation and whatever claims and defences are open to parties should all be put forward at the same time provided no confusion is likely to arise by so putting forward all such claimsWe are, therefore, of opinion that the question of overtime wages should be deemed to have been dealt with and disposed of by the Tribunal on whatever the basis of the claim for overtime wages may be12. The disputes between this company and its workers quite often come to this Court. The case in Bombay Gas Co. v. Shridhar Bhau (supra) is one such. The other cases are found in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, (1964) 3 S.C.R. 709 and Ramlanshan Jageshwar v. Bombay Gas Co. [1961-I L.L.J. 38]. If the workers are dissatisfied with any of the items in respect of which their claim has been rejected it is open to them to raise a fresh industrial dispute. The award has stood the test of time for twenty-five years, a very fare occurrence indeed these days.