LexBIRLA COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS versus WORKMEN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961 M olioalol Chunilal Ko4horft •• Triblt""1'1 Ha,ibhai Tamboli Sinha C. J. 1961 May2. 716 !UPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] apply the law a~ it was found on the date of its judgment. Hence, there is no question of taking a.way any vested rights in the landlords. It does not appear that the second notification, cancelling the first notification, had been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, who heard and decided the second appeal in the High Court. At any rate, there is no reference to the second notification. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the learned Judge came to the right conclusion in holding that the tenantll could not be ejected, though for wrong reasons. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but there would be no order as to costs in this Court, in view of the fact that the respondents had not brought the second notification cancelling the first to the pointed attention of the High Court. (P. Appeal dismissed. BIRLA COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS v. WORKMEN AND OTHERS B. GAJXNDRAGADKAR, K. SUllBA RAO, K. N. WANOHOO, J. C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ,) . lr1duatrial Diapute-Standardisatwn of wage alt'Uclure- Duignation of toorkm<n. . The dispute between the respondents and the appellants regarding mistries and line jobbers was referred to the Tribunal regarding the increase and standardi<ation of wages and regar- ding the designation of workmen doing th~ work of fancy j(>hbers and their pay. The appellant contended that an rarlier award of I 951 had not been terminated and that the reference was incompetent. The Tribunal directed s!andardi· sation on the basis of the Bombay Scheme. The Tribunal ,, ) 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 717 acceded to the claim regarding fancy jobbers. Finally the Tri- bunal directed that "whereever the said existing wages are higher than those fixed under the Bombay Standardisation Scheme, they shall remain and ,shall not be lowered" and that regarding operatives who were designated differently from Bombay list, they should be paid what those described by any other name but doing identical work were being paid i1,1 Bom- bay and that the adjustment of anomalies that might . arise in this matter should be decided by a Committee consisting of the representatives of the Management and the Union. · Hel<I, that the agreement following the earlier award .-as not a settlement within the meaning of.s. 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was Competent. Hel<I, further, that the Tribunal ought to . have consi- dered the applicability of the Bombay Standardisation Scheme to thecondition-.in Qelhi·by exai;nining evidence and that the Tribllilal ought not to have shut out evidence in respect of the working of the Boi;nhay Standardisation Scheme in Delhi and that the Tribunal had not. considered the matter carefully and made such modifications as might be neccs'lary. The Tribu· nal ought not to.have delegated the determination and iuljust- ment of the anomalies in applying the Bombay standardisation scheme to a joi1,1t committee b lt should have wnsidcred ·and determined th<ise matters itself. Hel<I, further, that in the event of standardisation it may be necessary if justice demanded it to give some mcasuie of protection to such individual workmen as were getting higher wages than what they would get under standardisation scheme. But the matter will have to be considered by .the Tribunal subject to three conditions: viz., (I) there can be no .further rise in wages of those protected by the operation of the stand- ardisation of scheme, (2) if. there is an . incremental. scales fix- ed hy the standardisation scheme and the proteeted workmen are getting between the minimum and the · maximum . but arc .not entitled thereto according to the length '.of their service; future increments should be adjusted till the j>rotected work- men find their proper place In the scale according to the length of service, and (3) the category of protected workmen should in.due course exhaust by the termination of scrviee of such workmen by retirement .or .otherwise. · Hel<I, that the direction of the Tribunai coi.ild be re~ to mean the protection of CJ<istlng higher wages generally. rather than the higher wages of particular workmen and such ·a thing was not consistent with the principles of standardisation. ; · lHB Bi<'la Collon Bpg. • Wog.MIU1 v. Worimln 196Z •irU. Cotton S~. 41 W
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.