Case: M/s. Tata Iron &amp; Steel Company Limited Vs. Their Workmen

2. The appellant company owns and manages, inter alia, seven collieries in the district of Dhanbad. In the year 1956 an All India Industrial Tribunal known as the Mazumdar Tribunal gave an award in respect of colliery disputes. In this award, commonly known as the Mazumdar Award the wage structure was fixed inter alia for the clerks employed in the various collieries including those belonging to the appellant company. The scales of salary under the said award were fixed as follows:Grade IIIRs. 36.3.75 Grade IIRs. 45.3.54.4.80. Grade IRs. 60.4.80.5.115 According to this award Bonus and Provident Fund Clerks were put in Grade II and Leave Clerks etc. in Grade III. The said scales were fixed by consent on the statements placed before the Tribunal by the Indian Mining Association and the then Principal Labour Federation. The appellant had fixed its own grades according to which the salaries were being paid at the time of the implementation of the Mazumdar Award and, therefore, it suitably raised the Award scales of pay as follows without disturbing the categorisation:Grade IIIRs. 45.3.78.4.82. Grade IIRs. 60.5.100Grade IRs. 87.7.115.8.131.9.158 Till 1959 Provident Fund accounts of the workers were maintained at different collieries but bonus accounts and leave with pay and railway fare accounts were being maintained at the Central office which was at that time situated at Digwadih. The clerks mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 17, 19, 20, and 22 to 20 of the Order of Reference on which the present award was given by the Industrial Tribunal were working either in the Bonus section in the Central Office or at, the Provident Fund Sections at the collieries and they were all placed in Grade II. The clerks mentioned at serial Nos. 18, and 21 were given Grade III on their appointment. In the year 1959 a decision was taken by the management of the appellant to amalgamate the bonusposting work and Provident Fund card posting work by introducing BonusFund card replacing the Bonus Registers and the Provident Fund Cards. It was considered that by this merger certain duplication of work would be avoided. After distribution of work according to the new decision the Central Office was doing the work connected with the Provident Fund, Bonus and Leave with wages and railway fare.

Reasoning:
6. We are unable to accede to the above submissions on behalf of the appellant. We have been taken through the evidence on which the Tribunal relied, in particular, the statement of Shivam who was mainly responsible for the introduction of the new system. It is clear from his evidence that the concerned clerks had to do much more work which required greater skill and efficiency than a Bonus or Provident Fund clerk had to do. Although there was documentary evidence which could have been produced to support his statement that the two clerks doing similar work had been given Grade I because they were doing supervisory work also but those documents were not produced in support of his statement. The Tribunal has rightly not relied on his evidence that those two clerks who had been given Grade I were in fact performing any duties of a supervisory nature over the work of Grade II clerks. The Mazumdar Award had put those clerks in Grade II who were either doing the work of Provident Fund Clerks or Bonus Clerks. The clerks in respect of whom the award had been given were performing duties of a different kind and of multifarious nature, as has been found by the Tribunal. On the whole, we are satisfied that there is no such infirmity in the appreciation of evidence which would justify our interfering with the award on a question which is more or less a question of fact.