Case: Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited Vs. Its Workmen and Another

2. The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It carries on the business of manufacturing and selling Hume pipe and allied products and owns as many as 57 factories in India, including the factory at Wadala, Bombay. The respondents are theworkmen employed by the appellant at its factory at Wadala. It appears that in 1950 the respondents made various demands on the appellant and the same were referred for adjudication by the Government of Bombay on 29 May, 1950. Amongst the demands made by the respondents was included a demand for wages. The respondents had claimed that the occupations of the employees of the appellant should be classified into four categories, viz., unskilled,skilled and highly skilled. The industrial tribunal, which heard the said dispute, decided that there should be only three categories of the employees, viz., unskilled,and skilled. It came to the conclusion that in regard to employees who claimed to be skilled in the higher degree, provision should be made for giving them adequately high salaries. In fact, the categorization of the employees into three categories was substantially achieved by consent between the parties. Consistently with the said classification,was devised by the industrial tribunal and ultimately its award was pronounced on 21 August 1951.Subsequently, in 1956, the respondents made a fresh demand in respect of theand contended that theneeded drastic revision, having regard to the fact that the cost of living had increased in the meanwhile. By demand 1 the respondents set out the manner in which theshould be revised and they specified eight categories of employees in that behalf. As we have already indicated, on the earlier occasion the parties had agreed that the respondents should be classified into three categories and had further consented to the inclusion of 12 categories in classification A, 22 categories in classification B and 13 categories in classification C, classification A, B, and C being unskilled,It also appears that when the matter was discussed before the tribunal at the present enquiry and more particularly when the tribunal visited the factory in the company of the appellants lawyer Sri Mehta and the respondents representative Sri Ram Desai, both of them agreed "that the nature of skill of the various categories would be as per the first award." The tribunal then inspected the factory and ultimately made its award. During the course of its inspection, the tribunal found that there were no designations like the assistant mason, assistant fitter, assistant moulder and others specified by it in Para. 16 of its award, and so, it created categories of certain assistants in respect of the job done by mason, fitter, moulder, hand welder, turner, shaper, transformer maker, carpenter, machine welder and machine driver. The tribunal then but the different employees in the three respective categories and revised the wages payable to them. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court.

Reasoning: f contends that in changing the categories of these workmen, the tribunal through error has failed to notice the fact that it was common ground between the parties before the tribunal that the classification and the categories prescribed by the earlier award had not to be changed and the only question which the tribunal was asked to decide in the present proceedings was one in regard to the revision of wages payable to the employees in the respective categories andseems to us that the grievance made by the appellant isThere is no doubt that before the tribunal, parties had agreed to take the skill of the various categories as it was prescribed by the earlier award and it has in fact observed that in view of the admission of the parties regarding classification. "the categories and classification of the respective employees had to be take as it was specified in annexure A, " annexure A containing the categories and the classification of the respective employees made in the earlier award. It is to be regretted that the tribunal proceeded to change the classification in respect of four categories of employees to which we have just referred, overlooking the fact that by virtue of the agreement between the parties, it was not competent to the tribunal to adopt such a course.Sri Sowani for the respondents attempted to argue that the tribunal has created a category of assistants, and so, it thought that it would be anomalous to treat an assistant mason, an assistant welder, an assistant carpenter or an assistant moulder asand the mason, the welder, the carpenter and the moulder also asThat may perhaps explain why the tribunal changed the classification in respect of the four categories of employees. In the present appeal, no grievance is made by the appellant in regard to the creation of certain assistant in the category ofemployees, and so, we are not called upon to consider whether the tribunal could have created this class of assistants, but it seems to us that the tribunal was not justified in promoting the four categories of employees into the skilled class in a manner which was inconsistent with the classification adopted by the earlier award. That is why we must hold that in regard to the mason, the welder the carpenter and the moulder, the classification must be deemed to be the same as was adopted by the earlier award. In regard to the assistant moulder, the appellants grievance is that there is no person who answers the description of that office. We propose to express no opinion on this part of the appellants case. If there are employees who can be regarded as assistant moulders under the award, their rights will not be affected, because the appellant has not seriously contended that the tribunal was not competent to create a class of assistant moulders, just as it has not been argued that a class of assistant masons, assistant fitter and other assistants could not have been created.