LexHINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. versus RAM MOHAN RAY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
624
HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.
V.
RAM MOHAN RAY & ORS.
(With cannected appeal)
March 1, 1973
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM JJ.)
Industrial DiJ/putes Act (14 of 1947) ss. 9A, 33A and 33C and 4th
Schedule items 8, 10 and 11-Scope of Industrial DiJ/pute-Reference to
Tribunal Applications by Workers pending reference-DiJ/posed of by
different Tribunal-Contradidory findings-Procedure not illegal.
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 13~cope of.
Before September 196.6 the marketing organisation of the employer·
company was in three divisions.
Thereafter it was organised into two
divisions. There were extensive and prolonged consultations. between the
employer and the employees but the reorganisation was not approved by
the employees. The new scheme was introduced on the 5th or 6th 5ep-
tember and the industrial dispute arising therefrom was referred to the
Tnbunal on 30th September. The workers presented themselves for work
every day and offered to work according to the old scheme but they were
not given any w(!rk. They were told that as long as they refused to work
under the new scheme they would not be paid any wages. Some workers
had voluntarily retired and the vacancies were not filled. Therefore, pend-
ing th~ adjudication on the reference already made, se~n workers filed
applications under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging·
that during the pendency of the adjucation, their service conditions bad
been changed adversely and that their salary for the month of October
had not been paid.
The Industrial Tribunal was
different in the two
cases as also the evidence let. in. in the two cases.
In the main reference,
the Tribunal held in favour of the" employer.
With reference to
the
applications of the employees, the other Tribunal held in favour ·of the
employees on the grounds that the conditions of . work had been changed
to the workers' prejudice, that the reorganisation was likely to lead to re·
trenchmen~ that the matter thus fell under item I 0 of Schedule 4 to the
Act and that· therefore, the employees were justified in refusing to work.
Both parties appealed to this Court.
HELD : On a consideration df the material in each of the awards
both the awards should be upheld.
[628 A-BJ
. (I) The evidence given in the main reference not being a part of the
evidence in the applications filed by the employees it is . not open to this
Court to take it mto consideration in deciding the appeals filed by the
employer as against the award in favour of the employees. [628AJ
(2) This Court, in considering a matter under Art. 136, does not
ordinarily reassess the evidence on the basis of which the Tribunal came
to its conclusion. It will interfere with ftndings of fad> only if they are
unsupported by any evidence or are wholly perverse.
[628 D-BJ
(3) The reorpnisation is neither a change in usage
fallin11
tmder
item 8 of the 4th Schedule to the Act, nor rationalisati0n falling under
item 10, nor an increase or reduction in .the nUIJlber of. persons employed
in any department falling under item 11; and hence, it w.s not necessary
.. ,, give any notice under s. 9A of the Act. (633 D-BJ
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
A
B
('
D
E
F
G
H
HINDUSTAN LEVER V. R. M. RAY
625
(a) The employer has a right to organise his work in the manner he
pleases.
[631C]
(b) The various decisions shoW that whether any particular practice
or allowance or concesSion had become a condition
of service
would
always depend upon the 'facts and circumstances of each. case..
On the
evidence and findings given by the Tribunal it cannot be held that there
has been any change in the terms and conditions of service of the workers
in this case to their detriment.
[633 C-El
Parry & Campany's [19701 1 L.L.J. 429; Dharangadhara
Chemical
Works Ltd. v. Kan/u Kalu & Ors. [1955] 1 L.L.J.
316; Chandramalai
Estate'· It; Workmen [1960] 2 L.L.J. 243; The Graham Trading Co.
(India) Ltd. v. It~ Workmen [1960] 1 S.C.R. 107; Workmen of HindUJ>o
tan Shipyard Ltd. v. l.T. [1961] 2 L.L.J. 526; McLeod & Co, v. Its Work:
men [1965]
1 L.L.J.
396; Indian Overseas Bank v.
Their Work7?1en
[1967-68]
33
F.J.R..
457; Indian Oxygen Limited v. Udaynath Singh
[1970] 2 L.L.J. 413; Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Their Workmen
[1972] 42 F.J.R. 551 and Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. Workmen A.l.R. [1972]
S.C. 1917, referred to.
(c) The Tribunal held on the basis of oral as well as documenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.