Case: Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal &amp; Another

In 1961 the Hindustan Steel Limited introduced a production bonus scheme in all their three plants at Bhilai Durgapur and Rourkela which covered approximately 9000 workers out of a total strength of 23000. This was a scheme for three years. On the expiry of this scheme, a new scheme called the Production Incentive Scheme was introduced in the Rourkela Steel Plant which was made effective from August 1, l964. The new scheme included a number of additional categories of workmen. The vehicle drivers employed at the Rourkela Steel Plant had been excluded from the benefit of the 1961 Scheme. When the Scheme of 1964 also was not extended to them, they raised a dispute which was referred by the Labour Department of the Government of Orissa by its Order dated January 22, 1964 to the Industrial Tribunal forIt appears that in their written statement filed before the Tribunal on September 14, 1964 the Management of Hindustan Steel Limited agreed to extend the production incentive scheme to the truck drivers who operated inside the plant carrying materials and stores but not to the drivers of other kinds of vehicles. The Tribunal in its Award came to the conclusion that all the vehicle drivers of Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela, should be admitted to the benefit of the Production Incentive Scheme. The Scheme classified the workers into various groups, two of such groups being the service group and the general group. The Tribunal held that the drivers should be brought "either under the service group or general group as decided by the Management in view of the nature of services rendered by them". The Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela sought to quash the award by a writ petition made before the Orissa High Court. This writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court, and the appellant, Hindustan Steel Limited, questions the propriety of that order in this appeal.

Reasoning: It appears to us that in this case the question does not arise in that simple and detached formwhether the bus drivers doing the job stated above contribute to the production. The scheme is of course called a production incentive scheme. We find that the benefit of the scheme has been extended to the Sewage Treatment Plant Workers, workers of the Scrap and Salvage Department.and Time Checkers and such other categories of workers with regard to whom it is not quite clear in what sense they are said to contribute to the production. If increase in the workload of any class of workmen as a result of increased production consequent on the introduction of the scheme is the test to find out whether they contribute to the production, the Tribunal has found that the workload of the vehicle drivers has increased and that of the Sewage Treatment Plant workers has not. The Sewage Treatment Plant workers have however been given the benefit of the scheme and not the bus drivers. The Tribunal has further found that "the Management transfers the drivers according to necessity from township to plant and vice versa and from one department to another. A person who is driving a bus today may be taken to the plant as a truck driver. Even a driver of a heavy vehicle can be asked to drive a light vehicle for some time". That being so, it is difficult to see how these 24 workers can be denied the benefit of the scheme on the ground that they are bus drivers when at any time they may have to work as truck drivers to whom the scheme has beenit appears that the Management had agreed to include the truck drivers in the service group and the drivers job is transferable in the sense that a bus driver may also be asked to drive a truck. We therefore find nothing wrong in the order of the Tribunal leaving it to the Management to decide in which of the said two groups the vehicle drivers should be included.5. In these circumstances, we agree with the Tribunal that "to avoid industrial unrest and further dispute, it is essential that ail the drivers of motor vehicles should be admitted to the benefit of the new scheme" and we do not find any error in the decision of the High Court refusing to quash the award.