LexHINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. versus THE WORKMEN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A t B c D E F G H 231 HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. v. THE WORKMEN AND ORS. August 4, J 975 (A. ALAGIR!SWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) s. 2(a)(i)-'Appropriate Government', Scove of--Direction by Tribunal to 1nake certain en1ployees perrnanent- Propriety, The (iovernn1ent of West Bengal referred under s. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, fi\'e :ssnes for adjudication by the Industrial "fribunal. The dispute was between the respondents-workmen working at the Barrackpore branch of the appellant company's workshop. All the shares of the ar;ipellant are owned bv the Central Government. and its Memorandum and Articles of Asso- ciation point out the vital role and control of the1Central Government in the matter ct carrying on of the industry. The Tribunal gninted relief with respect to three !.ssues. In appeal to this Court, the competency of the Government to .1nake the reterence was challenged on the ground that the appropriate Government to 1n"-ke the reference 'vas either the Central Government, because the industry was under the authority of the Central Government, or the State of Karnataka, since the works of the Harrackpore branch is under the Bangalore Divisional Office of the Company. Rejecting the contention, but aUow!ng the appeal to this Court on merits, HELD : l (a) The submission regarding the competency of the Central Government is identical to the one made before this Court and reoelled bv this Court in the case of fjeavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. The State of Bi/1ar [1969] 3 S.C.R. 995. [233C] (b) The fact that· the Government company in the Heavy Engineering Maz- door Union case was carry:inj?; on an industry where Private Sector. Undertakings were also operating, ·whereas, in the instant case, the Government alone was en- titled to carry on to the exclusion of ?Jrivate operators. would not make .any difference. [234Bl (c) The definition of "appropri.ate Government" in s. 2(a) (1) of the-Indus- trial Disputes Act has been amended from time to time and certain statutory cor- porations were incorporated in the definition to Ihake the Central Government 'the appropriate CJ-overnment' in relation to the industry r:arried on by them. But no public co1npany, even if the shares were exclusively owned by the Gov- ernment, was bi'ought wit~in the definition. [234C] (2) -As1iuming that the Barrackpore branch was under the control of th,e Bangalore Division of the Company, it was a se9arate branch working as a separate unit. The workers were receiving their pay at Barrackpore, were under the control of the officers of the Company stationed there. their grievances :\-Vere their own and the cause of action in relation to the industrial dispute arose there. If there was any disturbance Qf industrial peace at Barrackpore, the appropriate Governn1ent concerned in ~ts maintenance was the West Bengal Government. [234D-E] Mis. Lipton Limited and another v. Their employees [1959] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 150, Jistin,guished. (3) On the first issue relating to allowance for the education of emplovees' children the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay Rs. 12/- per month to rnch en1ployee to n1eet the educati.onal exvenses of his children. This direction is irt effect a revision of the pay structure of the Barrackpore employees and the Tri- bunal had no jurisdiction to chang;~ ·th~ wage structure in tQe garb of a1lowing ~dµcatipnal expenses. f2l~A-C] · · 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 1 S.C.R. (4) On the issue regarding revision of lunch allowance, the aw~rd of the 1Lri- , bunal was unnecessary because all members of the staff were getting such lunch allowance. [235E-F] ( 5) As regards the d1.rections of the Tribunal that certain canteen employees shoald be n1ade pern1anent, it was not justified because those workmen were casual workmen appointed temporarily. The workmen-could be made pei:ma~ent only against permanent vacancie-5 and not otherwise, and there was no d!fect1on by the Tribunal for the creation of any new post. [235F-H] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 1969 A B Appeal by special leave from the Award dated the 5th March, 1969 ' of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No. 26 of 1967. "°1' V. S. Desai and R. B. Datar, for the-appellant. A. K. Sen and Sukumar Ghose, for respondent no. 1. c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.