Case: Damodardas Bhagavandas (Private) Limited Vs. S Poona Labour Union

( 2 ) RESPONDENT 1 is a trade union which represents the workmen of theOn 12 April, 1965, certain demands were raised by respondent 1 on behalf of the petitioners workmen. On 13 July, 1965 the demands of the petitioners workmen relating to fixing ofleave and permanency were admitted in conciliation by the conciliation officer. As the conciliation proceedings proved infructuous, the conciliation officer, on 31 December, 1965, made his report to the Government of Maharashtra under S. 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 16 February, 1966, the Government of Maharashtra referred the said demands to respondents 2 for adjudication under S. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, by a notice dated 22 February, 1966, thewas called upon to file its written statement on or before 18 March, 1966. The time to file the written statement was subsequently extended on 10 March, 1966. By its notice dated 25 May, 1966 the tribunal intimated to the parties that the hearing would take place on 1 July, 1966. Theneither filed its written statement nor remained present at the time of hearing and an award was passed by respondent 2 on 26 July, 1966 and was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 4 august, 1966. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before respondent 2 requesting him to set aside the said award and to hear the matter afresh. Respondent 2 held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application and, accordingly, he rejected the said application by his order dated 13 September 1966. It is against the said award and the said order that the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 227.

Court's reasoning:
( 3 ) WE really do not think it necessary in this case to consider the question whether the industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside an award passed in the absence of one of the parties in an application made by such party, since in our opinion no facts or circumstances are disclosed in the petition to induce this Court even to exercise his discretion and set aside the award and direct a rehearing of theis also difficult to understand how the management thought of taking legal advice but could not do so on account of its alleged weak financial position when it is alleged that it was wholly ignorant about the pending industrial dispute on account of the illness of the said Sugandhi. There is also no explanation as to why the time to file written statement was extended by the tribunal. Presumably, it could have been only on an application made by the petitioner. In these circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner has made out any case at all for setting aside the said award and having the matter5 ) SO far as the attack on the said award is concerned, the material facts are that thewhich was started about fifty years ago, manufactures perfumed agarbathis. There are 35 workmen employed in theout of whom 33 are women, most of them being widows. These workers areand they get a salary of Rs. 1. 25 per day which is consolidated at about Rs. 32 for 26 working days. The tribunal has held these wages to be below the starvation level. After referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the union, the tribunal has set out the minimum wages received by workers in certain industries. The tribunal has also referred to the wages received by domestic servants and has held that, in the circumstances, a fair and propershould be Rs. 7599 per month in respect of unskilled workers, Rs. 90114 per month for semiskilled workers, and Rs. 100120 per month for skilled workers. It is the submission of Sri Agarwal, learned advocate for the petitioner, that the tribunal erred in law in directing its attention merely to the minimum wages for scheduled industries in the Greater Bombay area and that it ought really to have taken into consideration the minimum wages for scheduled industries in the Poona zone. We do not think that this is a proper reading of the award. The tribunal has not fixed theon the basis alleged by the petitioner. The tribunal has merely referred to these minimum wages as also to wages received by domestic servants to show how far below the minimumwere the wages received by the petitioners employees and to bring out forcibly the fact that these wages were below the starvation level. We see nothing contrary to any established principle or the provisions of any law in thefixed by the tribunal. The tribunal also awarded that workmen should get seven days casual leave per year with full wages and ten days sick leave with half wages with permission to accumulate it for twenty days and further that all the workers in thewho had put in more than six months service should be made permanent. No arguments have been advanced before us on this part of the5 ) SO far as the attack on the said award is concerned, the material facts are that thewhich was started about fifty years ago, manufactures perfumed agarbathis. There are 35 workmen employed in thet of whom 33 are women, most of them being widows. These workers ared they get a salary of Rs. 1. 25 per day which is consolidated at about Rs. 32 for 26 working days. The tribunal has held these wages to be below the starvation level. After referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the union, the tribunal has set out the minimum wages received by workers in certain industries. The tribunal has also referred to the wages received by domestic servants and has held that, in the circumstances, a fair and propershould be Rs. 759 per month in respect of unskilled workers, Rs. 904 per month for semiskilled workers, and Rs. 1000 per month for skilled workers. It is the submission of Sri Agarwal, learned advocate for the petitioner, that the tribunal erred in law in directing its attention merely to the minimum wages for scheduled industries in the Greater Bombay area and that it ought really to have taken into consideration the minimum wages for scheduled industries in the Poona zone. We do not think that this is a proper reading of the award. The tribunal has not fixed theon the basis alleged by the petitioner. The tribunal has merely referred to these minimum wages as also to wages received by domestic servants to show how far below the minimumwere the wages received by the petitioners employees and to bring out forcibly the fact that these wages were below the starvation level. We see nothing contrary to any established principle or the provisions of any law in thed by the tribunal. The tribunal also awarded that workmen should get seven days casual leave per year with full wages and ten days sick leave with half wages with permission to accumulate it for twenty days and further that all the workers in theo had put in more than six months service should be made permanent. No arguments have been advanced before us on this part of theaward.