INDIAN OXYGEN LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 550 · Decided: 05-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

550 
INDIAN OXYGEN LTD. 
v. 
THEIR WORK.\IEN 
August 5, 1968 
A 
[J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAYA AND C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Dispute-Joint application to refer dispute-Metnhership of 
1vork1nen union thro1vn open-Wlzerlzer au:ard applies to night 1nembers 
o~vertime-Principles of payment-Absence 
without 
leave 
to 
attend nreetings etc.-lf permissible. 
The appellant and it' workmen, represented by their union called the 
Indoxco Labour Union, Jamshedpur, made a joint 
application to 
the 
C 
Government referring certain disputes to the Industrial Tribunal. 
The 
application stated that the number df workmen employed in the under-
taking affected were those employed in the company's factory at Jamsbcd-
pur, and that the same number were likely to be affected by the disputes. 
The Government referred the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal, and the 
notification also stated that the disputes were between the management 
of the appellant company-'s factory at Jamc;hedpur and their workmen re-
presented by Indoxco Labour Union. Two of the demands were (I) 
D 
payment of overtime to office staff should be 
l i 
times the ordinary rate 
and ( 2) the union represcntativL>s should he allowed special 
leave to 
attend law courts for matters connected with the workers and the manage-
mcnl, to atlcnd the annual conventions of their federation, to attend to 
Executive C.Ommittee meetings of the union-federation and the conventions 
of the central organisation i.e., INTIJC. The union at a general mceling, 
held prior to the reference, had passed a resolution changing the name 
of the union to fodian Oxygen Workers Union and making the workmen 
E 
of all the establishments of the Appellant company in Bihar eligible for its 
membership. By a 
letter the 
union informed the appellant company at 
Jamshedpur of this amendment. 
The Tribunal held that (i) the award 
in this case was to apply to all of the workmen and could not be restricted 
to the workman working at Jamshedpur; 
(ii) It times the ordinary 
wages 'for overtime work exceeding 39 hours but not exceeding 48 hours 
per week should be paid; and if the O\"ertime exceeded 48 hours per week, 
F 
tbe company would be liable to pay double the ordinary rate of wages; and 
(iii) the appellant company bacl been allowing without loss of pay the 
representatives of the workmen to attend proceedings before conciliation 
officers and Industrial Tribunals, and that this concession was 
sufficient; 
therefore the Tribunal rejected the demand for special leave with pay to 
attend the law courts; but held the union's representatives were to be given 
special leave to attend (a) meetings of its executive committee, (b) meet-
ings of the federation of the union, (c) the annual convention of that fede-
G 
ration when held at Jamshcdpur and (d) the convention of tbe INTUC. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (i) The award was operative only in respect of the workmen 
of the appellant company's factory at Jamshcdpur and not the workmen 
of its other establishments. [561 C-Dl 
The agreement by which the parties agreed to refer the said disputes 
for adjudication was between the management of the appellant company's 
factory at Jamshedpur, and the workmen employed in that factory and 
represented by their said union, the lndoxco Labour Union. 
Under the 
notification of the Government also the disputes referred ta the Tribunal 
H 
-
A 
j 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
INDIAN OXYGEN v. WORKMEN 
551 
were those set out in the said agreement. Even assuming that the Indoxco 
Labour Union validly amended its constitution so as to extend its mem-
bership to the company's other workmen in its other establishments, inas-
much as the disputes referred to the Tribunal were only those set out m 
the said agreement, any award made by the Tribunal in respect of those 
disputes mnst necessarily be e-0nfined to the disputes refered to it, the 
parties to thooe disputes and the parties who had agreed to refer those 
disputes for adjudication. 
There is nothing to show in that notification 
that other workmen <if the company had raised similar demands or that 
there were any disputes existing or apprehended which were included in 
that reference. [555 D-G] 
The Union did not produce any evidence to show that the amendments 
purported to have been carried out by the resolution were sent to the 
Registrar as provided in ss. 6(g), 28(3), 29 and 30(3) of the Trade Umon 
Act and regulation 9 of the Central Trade Uni

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.