BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED, BANGALORE versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 15-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED, BANGALORE 
v. 
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KARNATAKA, 
BANGALORE AND ANR. 
MARCH 15, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND 
"' 
K.J. REDDY, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33(2)(b)-'Night shift 
al/owance'-Whether 'Wages' 
Respondent-workman was in employment of the Appellant-
management as Bus driver. Following an incident of misconduct com· 
milted by him, a domestic inquiry was conducted against him under 
Standing Orders IS(l)(b) and IS(l)(r) of the Company wherein he was 
held guilty by the Enquiry Officer and was eventually dismissed from 
the service w.e.f. 31.12.1979. On that day itself the management moved 
an application before the Industrial Tribunal under section 33(2)(b) of 
the Act for approval of the action taken and towards meeting the 
requirements of the provisions of the act paid to the workman before 
hand wages for one month. The workman filed his objection Statement 
to that application raising several contentions denying all the allega· 
lions made against him and challenging the validity of the domestic 
enquiry. This application somehow was kept pending by the Tribunal 
for over six years when sometime in July, 1986 the workman moved an 
application before the Tribunal seeking amendment of his objection 
petition to urge an additional ground that one month's wages paid to 
him were short by Rs.12, being the monthly night shift allowance as -he 
was ordinarily expected to work by rotation as per standing orders of 
the Company and thus as full one month's wages had not been paid to 
him as required under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the approval sought 
for ought to be declined. The management contended that the night 
shift allowance is neither paid nor payable unless the night shift is 
actually performed and thus this amount cannot form part of the 
month's wages automatically. The Industrial Tribunal while abandon· 
ing giving any finding on the validity of the domestic enquiry, upheld 
the additional obJection taken by the workman and declined the 
management's application seeking approval to the dismissal of the 
workman. Hence this appeal by special leave by the management. Set· 
ting aside the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal and allow-
ing their application made under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, this Court in allowing the appeal, 
971 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 1 S.C.R. 
HELD: The workman had to earn night shift allowance by actu-
~ ally working in the night shift and his claim to that allowance was 
~ 
B 
contingent upon his reporting to duty and being put to that shift. The 
night shift allowance did not automatically form part of his wages and it 
was not such an allowance which Oowed to him as an entitlem~t of his 
service. [98IC] 
The Tribunal fell into a grave error in declining the application of 
"' 
the management for approval on the ground of short payment of Rs.12 
on account of night shift allowance, which the workman supposedly 
would have earned had he goue to report for duty. [91HD1 
Syndicate Bank Limited v. Ram Nath Bhat, [1967-68] (XXXll) FJR 490 
C at 497; Mis. Podar.Mills Ltd. v.Bhaf(wan Singh and Anot/fer, 11974] 3 
SCC 157; Bennett Coleman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Punya Priya Das Gupta, 
[1970] 1 SCR 181 and Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India & Ors., 
,.( 
[1974] 2 SCR 178, referred to. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 744 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1986 of the Industrial 
Tribunal Kamataka in Serial No. J/80 in I.D. No. 26 of 1979. 
E 
Narayan B. Shetye, Vineet Kumar and Vinay Bhasin for the 
F 
Appellant. 
-::_ 
M.C. Narasimhan and Jitender Sharma for the Respondent No. 
f 
2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PUNCHHI, J. Whether "night shift allowance" forms part of 
"wages" in the context of section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the issue which crops 
up for decision in this appeal by special leave against the order dated 
6 
October 9, 1986 of the Industrial Tribunal, Karnataka at Bangalore in 
Serial No. 1of1980 in I.D. No. 26 of 1979. 
It arises on these facts. 
Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore, the appellant-herein, is 
H the "management" and the respondent Shri B. Sridhar, "workman" 
BHARAT ELECTRONICS v. INDUSTRIAL CORPN. [PUNCHHI, J.] 
973 
was in employment with the management as a bus driver. The 
establishment of the management, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.