Case: Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs. The Workmen And Ors

The Tribunal granted no relief to the workmen on issues 2 and 3, allowed their claim in part in respect of issues 1, 4 and 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the appellant which is a Government company constituted under Section 617 of the Companies Act, the shares of which are entirely owned by the Central Government, has filed this appeal. The dispute relates to about 1,000 workmen working at the Barrackpore (West Bengal) branch of the Companys repairing workshop represented by the Hindustan Aeronautics workers Union, Barrackpore.

Reasoning:
. Desai made a futile and unsubstantial attempt to distinguish the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union, (AIR 1970 SC 82  Lab IC 212) on the ground that that was the case of a Government Company carrying on an industry where Private Sector Undertakings were alsooperating. It was not an industry, as in the instant case, which the Government alone was entitled to carry on to the exclusion of the private operators. The distinction so made is of no consequence and does not affect the ratio of the case in the least.We may also add that by amendments made in the definition of "appropriate Government" in Section 2 (a) (i) frorn time to time certain statutory corporations were incorporated in the definition to make the Central Government an appropriate Government in relation to the industry carried on by them. But no public company even if the shares were exclusively owned by the Government was attempted to be roped in the said definition.4. The other leg of the argument to challenge the competency of the West Bengal Government to make the reference is also fruitless.It may be assumed that the Barrackpore branch was under the control of the Bangalore division of the company. Yet it,was a separate branch engaged in an industry of repairs of aircrafts or the like at Barrackpore. For the purposes of the Act and on the facts of this case the Barrackpore branch was an industry carried on by the company as a separate unit. The workers were receiving their pay packages at Barrackpore and were under the control of the officers of the company stationed there. If there was any disturbance of industrial peace at Barrackpore where a considerable number of workmen were working the appropriate Government concerned in the maintenance of the industrial peace was the West Bengal Government. The grievances of the workmen of Barrackpore were their own and the cause of action in relation to the industrial dispute in question arose there. The reference, therefore, for adjudication of such a dispute by the Governor of West Bengal was good and valid. The facts of the case of M/s. Lipton Limited v. Their Employees, (1959) 2 Supp SCR 150 = (AIR 1959 SC 620  ) cited on behalf of the appellant are clearly distinguishable. The ratio of trial case was pressed into service in vain on behalf of the appellant.5. The first demand on behalf of the workmen as respects the education allowance of the children was chiefly based upon the educational facilities said to be available to the workmen ofhowever do not propose to go into the merits of the rival contentions. In our opinion the award directing the company to pay Rs. 12 per month to each employee to meet educational expenses of their children irrespective of the number of children a particular workman may have is beyond the scope of the issue referred for adjudication. The Tribunal while discussing this issue felt constrained to think that strictly speaking claim for allowance for the education of employees children could not form a subject matter of industrial dispute. Really it was a matter to be taken into consideration at the time of fixing their wages. In substance and in effect the directions given by the Tribunal is by way of revision of the pay structure of the Barrackpore employees. No such reference was either asked for or made. The Tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to change the wage structure in the garb of allowing educational expenses for the employees children. We may add that on behalf of the appellant it was stated before us that the latest revised wage structure has taken the matter of education of the employees children into consideration, while, Mr. A. K. Sen, appearing for the workmen, did not accept it to be so. If necessary and advisable a proper industrial dispute may be raised in that regard in future but the award as it stands cannot be upheld.The 10 workmen sought to be made permanent under issue No. 5 were casual workmen before 4-1-1967 within the meaning of clause (b) (d) of Standing Order I headed "Classification of workmen". They were appointed as temporary workmen within the meaning of clause (b) (d) of Standing Order I on and from 4-1-1967. The Tribunals direction to make them permanent on and from 4-1-1968 treating them as probationers appointed in permanent vacancies was not justified. The Tribunal did not go into the question as to whether more permanent workmen were necessary to be appointed in the canteen over and above the existing permanent strength to justify the making of the 10 workmen as permanent in the canteen where they were working. No direction of creation of new posts was given. On the evidence as adduced before the Tribunal and on the basis of the findings recorded by it, it is plain that the 10 workmen or any of them could be made permanent only against the permanent vacancies and not otherwise. On behalf of the appellant it was stated before us that all of them have been made permanent against such vacancies, while, on behalf of the workmen the assertion was that none of them has been made permanent so far. The management has no objection in absorbing the 10 workmen concerned in permanent vacancies as and when they occur if any of them has not been already absorbed. The workmen want nothing more than this.Apropos issue No. 4 itwas stated on behalf of the appellant that all staff and not only the supervisory staff were getting Rs. 1.50 as lunch allowance under circumstances similar to the ones under which the employees belonging to the supervisory staff were getting Rupees 1.50 as lunch allowance. The award of the Tribunal, therefore, was unnecessary and superfluous in that regard. If that be so, the award may be a surplusage as it is conceded on behalf of the appellant that under the existing service conditions every employee eligible to get a lunch allowance was getting @ Rs. 1.50.