LexBURN & CO., CALCUTTA versus THEIR EMPLOYEES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS BURN & CO., CALCUTTA v. THEIR EMPLOYEES (and connected appeal) [BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, s. K. DAS and GovINDA MENON JJ.] 781 Industrial Dispute-Tribunal's award-Term of operation-If and 'lihen can be reopened in a subsequent ·dispute-Principle of res judioata, if applicable-Boni<S~Olaim when maintainable-Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal-Appealability-Power of Supreme - Court in appeal-Inditstrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), s. 19(6)- Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (XL VIII of 1950). s. 7( 1)( a)-Oonstitution of India, Art. 186. An award of an Industrial Tribunal is intended to have a long term of operation, and can he reopened under s. 19(6) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act XIV of 194 7 only when there has been a. material change in the circumstances on which it was based. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the two be.sic. objects which all industrial legislations have in view, namely, to ensure to the workmen a. fair return for their la.hour and to prevent disputes between the employers and employees, so that production might not be affected and the interests of the society might not suffer. That although the rule of res judicata as enacted by s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not in terms apply to such an award, its underlying principle which is founded on sound public policy and is of universe.I application must apply. The Army tt Navy Stores Ltd., Bombay v. Their Workmen, ([1951] 2 L.L.J. 31) and Ford MotfJT Oo. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, ([1951] 2 L.L.J. 231). approved and applied. Sheoparson Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Singh, ([1916) L.R. 43 I.A. 91), referred to. Consequently, where, as in the instant case, the Union of the employees of a. certain section of the appellant Company served a. notice on the Company under s. 19(6) of the Act terminating a pre- vious a.ward which had applied to its members the scales of pay and dearness allowance fixed by the Bengii.l Chamber of Commerce with slight modifications, and demanded that the more favourable scale of pay adopted by the Mercantile Tribunal in its a.ward might be applied to them, and the Tribunal appointed to adjudicate the dis- pute, held that, there having been no change in the circumstances in which the previous a.ward had been ma.de, the same was bind- ing between the parties and could not be modified, but the Appel· 10~ 7956 October I I. 1956 Burn and Co., Calcutta 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956) late Tribunal in appeal held otherwise and brushed aside the previous award, held that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was erroneous in law and as such liable to be set aside. v. Held further, that the reason for the grant of a bonus being Their Employees that the workers should be allowed to share in the prosperity to which they have contributed, unless the profits for a particular year were adequate for a payment of bonus to all the workers of the Com- pany in a.II its sections 1 no claim for it could at all arise either in law or equity. · Karam Chand Thappar tt Bros.' Workmen v. The Company ([1953] L.A.O. 152), refarred to. That an order passed by the Tribunal refusing reinstatement would be appealable under s. 7(l)(a) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act of 1950 if it involved a substantial ques- tion of law and it was not necessary to decide in the present case whether the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that an appeal lay to it under that section was final and not open to question in a. civil court, as the correctness of that decision was challenged not collaterally or in an independent proceeding but in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution and it was open to the Supreme Court in such an appeal to consider the legality or otherwise of the orders passed either by the Tribunal or by the Appellate Tribunal in appeal. Pankaj Kumar Ganguli v. Tlie Bank of India, ([1956] 60 C.W.N. 602) and Upper Ganges Valley Electric Employees Union v. Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. and another, (A.I.R. 1956 All. 491). distinguished. That the omission to draw up a formal charge-sheet against a workman could not vitiate an order of dismissal if he was aware of the charge framed against him and had an opportunity of offering his explanation. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 325 of 1955 and 174 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the decision and order dated the 29th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.