LexIMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE WORKMEN (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 349 to close and permit his rival, who employs perhaps a dozen members of his family, to remain open, clearly places the former at a grave commercial disadvan- tage. To permit such a distinction might well engender discontent and in the end react upon the relations between employer and employed." We have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the attack on the constitutionalit~ of s. 7(1) of the Act. The appeal fails and is dismised. Appeal dismissed. IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE WORKMEN (AND CONNECTED APPEAL) (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Award, if can deprive workmen of pre- existing benefits-Age of retirement-Fixation-Relevant considera- tions-Failure of Tribunal to consider evidence adduced by~parties Duty of Supreme Court. The workmen of the Imperial Chemical Industries at Bom- bay claimed, firstly, twice the employee's normal rate of pay for the work done on Sundays and holidays and secondly that all employees of the company shall not compulsorily be retired by the company before they attain the age of 60. The company djsputed the demands on the grounds that it had paid Sunday and holiday work allowance in terms of an earlier award, and as no change of circumstances had taken place since the making of the award a revision was not justified; as for the age of retirement as it had fixed the retirement age at 55 for all its employees throughout India, any revision would have r,epercus- sion in other branches of the company. The tribunal partly allowed the claim of the workmen and directed the company to give the employees concerned for work done on Sundays and holidays half a day's total salary and dearness allowance ; and for the work done by the employees on Manohar Lal v. The Stale of Punjab Ayyangar .f. N ovt111ber r 4. 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] '960 festival holiday, a day's salary and dearness allowance, but the : - employees would not be entitled to a substituted holiday. l»1perial Chemical Th T "b 1 · k" h d' · · be k d 1 1 d t ie (I d. ) e r1 una 1n ma tng t e 1st1nct1on tween wor one ' ; ~s; 'L. 11 1 •; on Sundays on the one hand and festival holidays on the other, nva e '"" ' in effect, placed the workmen in worse position than before the Th• ;;rkmen award with respect to the work done on festival holidays and deprived the workmen of their right to a compensatory weekly I I I I I I I I I off or a substituted holiday, and also of a part of the benefits to which they were entitled under the pre-existing arrangement. Further the Tribunal without taking into consideration the recent trend in Bombay with regard to the age of retirement and an inportant document produced by the workmen in support thereof, which conclusively.showed that in Bombay the age of retirement was almost invariably fixed at 60 and not at 55, fixed the age of retirement at 58 years. Held, that the Tribunal in making an award could not deprive the workmen of the benefits to which they were entitled to under the pre-existing arrangement and place them in a worse position than before the award when the company did not want any change in its favour. In the instant case the allowance in respect of the work done by the employees on festival holidays would continue to be in accordance with the practice prevailing before the present dispute arose. Held, further, that in fixing the age of retirement no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The decision on the question always depends on a proper assessment of the relevant factors and may conceivably vary from case to case. In industrial adjudication it is generally recognised that where an employer adopts a fair and reasonable pension scheme that would play an important part in fixing the age of retire- ment at a comparatively earlier stage. If a retired employee can legitimately look forward to the prospect of earning a pen- sion then the hardship resulting from early compulsory retire- ment is considerably mitigated: that is why cases where there is a fair and reasonable scheme of pension in vogue would not be comparable or even relevant in dealing with the age of retirement in a concern where there is no such pension scheme. The recent trend in the Bombay area clearly appears to be to fix the age of retirement at 60. The material facts in the instant case being very simila
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.