LexBOMBAY GAS CO. LTD. versus JAGANNATH PANDURANG & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-..._ I A BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD. v. JAGANNATH PANDURANG & OTHERS August 12, 1975 291 ll (A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J c F (; H lndustrilll Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10-Award of an Industrial Tl'l'•unal, if binds workmen canting to work under the eniployer after the award. Labour Law-Principles of res judicata, if apply to industrial disputes, The 118 respondents are \Vorkmen of the appellant comp·any'v.1ork.ing in diffi.:- 1 cnt departments of the company's works. Respondents 1 to 14 are Syphon Pumpers. They £led 14 applications before the Additional Authority under s. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming overtime \Vages for _the pe1iod Febru- 'ary 1957 to January 1958. Respondents 15 to 80 are Mains workel'll. The\ tiled 66 applications before the same author:ty claiming overtime wages for tht.: periC>Q December 1956 to. November 1957. Respondents 81 to 118 filed 38 applications before the Third Additional Authority claiming wages for weekly on days. They belonged to the_Mains, HeaEng Appliances and Fitting- Department-.:. They had joined the appelTant company after 1948. Before thei Authority under the Payment of Wages Act the company contended that all the claims were bar· red under an award of the Industrial Tribunal in Ref. No. 54 of 1949, which was made on 30-3-1950 and published on 11-5-1950. The Tribunal held that workers of Services and District fittings departments and lamp-repairers \Vho used to work till 1948 on all the seven days of the week, would be entitled to be paid weekly day off. The Authority held that (1) the claims of the Booster Atten- dants for wages for overtime work and weekly off days were covered by the award, (2) the claims of Applicants other than Booster Attendants were not covered by the award, and (3) the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act \Va-; not applicable to them, and dismissed the applications of respondeni'> 1 to 80 The applications made by respondents 81 to 113 were allowed by the Third Addit:.onal Authority holding that the award was no bar to those applications aod that the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act were appli- cable. The Court of Small Causes, Bombay, \Vhich dealt with the appeals filed by the workmen and the company held that the claims of workers for oyertimc wages and wages for weekly off days were barred by the award. It also held that the appellant company was a commercial establishment within lhe meaning of that terms under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. All the workmen filed a writ pet'.tion challenging the judgment of the Court of Small Causes. The High Court held that the claims of the respondents were not barred by the award and relllc:1nded the applications of respcndents 1 to 80 to the Authority under 1J1e Payment of Wages Act for ascertaining and decreeing the amount. As 're- gards respondents 81 to 118 the judgment of the Third ~dditiotial Authority under the Pament of Wages Act was restored. This appeal is preferred on the basis of the spec~.al leave gran,ted by the Supreme Court. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) An award of an Industrial Tribunal in a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act binds not only persons who were the workmen of the employer at the time the award was made but also workmen who came to work under the employer after the awa.rd. It would not be correct, therefore, to hold that they would be entitled to be paid separately for the weekly day off. It must be presumed that their scales of pay were the same as for the workmen who were· work~.ng before 1948 also. There was no averment to the contrarv. They cannot, therefore, be allowed an extra benefit which would not be available tl) the same category of workmen \Vho \\'ere working under the employer since before 1948. [295B-C]. · (ii) The reasoning of the High Court Iha! the workmen are entitled to be paid for the days off either under the award or under section 18(3) of the Born· 292 SUPR!JME COURT REPORTS [19761 1 S.C,R. A bay Shops and Establishments Act, is not correct. The High Court seems to have assumed wrongly that there was a scale of wages for weekly off days under the awa<d. [295C-DJ (iii) The specific cas_e of workers in the Mains Department has been dealt with and rejected; so also in the case of coke supply coolies arkl motor drivers. The Workmen concerned here being all workmen of the ~fains departm~nt. the que
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.