LexM/S. VOLTAS LTD. versus J. M. DEMELLO & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
865 MfS. VOLTAS LTD. A v. J. M. DEMELLO & ANR. July 21, 1971 [J. M. SHELAT AND A N. RAY, JJ.] B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 33C(2)-Labour Court as executing court whether can go into history of dispute in order to construe scop~ of award. Constitution of ITtdia; Art. 226-High Courts cannot interfere when order of labour court under s. 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is within its jurisdiction and does not suffer from any apperent error. C Respondent No. I joined the service of M/s. Volkhart Bros. on March 3, 1930. On the merger of that concern with the appellant·company in Septemloer 1954, he became the employee of the latter. In September 1954, the appellant-company took over the staff of MI s. Volkhart Bros. on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to them when they were the employees of Yolkhart Bros. During the period when respondent I was in D the employment of M /s. Volkbart Bros. he was governed by a scheme of dearness allowance framed with the consent of the parties and incorporated in the Bakhale Award dated May 26, 1951. The scheme provided bvth maximum and minimum dearness allowance viz. Rs. 165 and Rs. 60 res- pectively, and subject to them the dearness allowance payable was 75% for the first hundred, 37!% for the second hundred and 18% for the oalance of the wages. By a circular dated November 16, 19S3 the maximum dear- ness allowance Jlayable was increased to Rs. 300, On August 18, 1956 a E charter of demands was served on the company on 'behalf of the work- men. Demand No. S was for revision of the scheme of dearness allowance_ The parties arrived at a settlement dated August 30, !9S7 under which the company agr~d to pay dearness allowance at increased rates, the- minimum being raised to Rs. 75. There was no reference as to the maxi·· mum either in demand No. S or in the settlement. According to the com .. pany the maximum was raised from Rs, 300 to Rs. 3SO by a circular dated Marcltl2, 19S9. On January 16, 1961, !he union served the c:Ompany wit! F a fresh charter of demands, demand No. 9 whereof related to dearnes• allowance. Higher rates were demanded but there was no reference to a maximum, The charter of deml\nds was referred to the tribunal presid- ed over by Mr. Meher whose award dated February 18, 1963 made certain changes in the scheme without referring to a maximum. On December 17, 1964 respond~! No. I filed an application to the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) for computing the benefit due to him in respect of dearness allow- G anco payable to him. His claim for dearness allowance of more than RL 3SO was resisted by the company on the ground that that was the maxi- mum fixed under the earlier scheme· which continued to subsist since the Moher Award had not made any change in this respect. The Labour Court after &oing into the full history of the matter, since tho llakhalo · Award, decided !hat the company was right in limiting the dearness allow- ance to Rs.' 3SO. The High Court in a writ petition filed by respondent No. I held that Labour Court fell into a grosa error in examining the pre- H vious history as to ·th• dearness allowance which was irrelevant. It directed the Labour Court to compute the dearness allowance without any reference to tho maximum. In the company's appeal by special leave, 55-1 S.O.India/71 866 A B c D E G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1971] SUPP. s.c.R HELD: Proceedings under s. 33C(2) are analogous to execution pro- ceedings and a Labour Coun called upon to compute benefits claimed by a wor~man is in the position of an executing court and as sach com- petent to mterpret an award where there is a dispute as to the rights there. under or as. t? its correct interpretation. Although it cannot go behind the award, 1t ts nevertheless competent to construe the award where it is _ambiguous and to ascertain its precise meaning, for unless that is done, 1t cannot enforce the award when it is called upon to do so by an applica- tion under s. 33C. [874A-C] Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Raffteshwar, [1968] I S.C.R. 140, Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan, [1%4) 3 S.C.R. 140, 152 and Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, (1964) 3 S.C.R. 709, 715- 716, referred to. In th• present case the Labour Court had and was competent to decide the question whether there was a ceiling in the existing scheme_ and if so, whether it was deleted by the Tribunal, in other words, wheth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.