LexPOLYCHEM LIMITED versus R. D. TULPULE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
c •0 E r C · 855· POLYCHEM LIMITED v. R. D. TULPULE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BOMBA\ &. ANR. March 15, l97l [C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM, I. D. DUA AND G. K. M!TTER, JJ.] Lt.buur Luw-Wage · policy~Fi.wtion uf (11/on·cmce-Principleli (() hi! con.ridert'CI. TI.•: dcm1nd for vacation allowanc..'C of the workmen of. the appcl-· !ants, at the same rate as was granted to the higher 3taff, was granted bv th~ lmlu~lrial Tribunal. Th= Tribunal uccid:d tt .. : question on the hasis that the appellant-employer had th~ fln-:ancial capaqty to stand the bur of ~uch allo...,an;::: l:dng grnntcd to the workmen at the rate claimed. Allowing the appeal ROd remanding the mutter to be considered afre~h by <he Tribunal, HELD ; ( 1) :The ultima to;: <'hjcct of inuu trbl adjuJication in this country is to help the growth and prQgres~ of national economy; and fer reali~ i ng that object, indu~trinl dispules Ill'! settled on princ1ples of fair play und justi~ ha'rmonising t~ conflicting clainu o! capital and labour with full aw;~reness of socio-economic trends -of thought. Indus· tritl law in !his country, is therefore. expected to effectively secure to the workers. conditions of service reasonably conducive to the im- pro,em•1nt of thdr social and economic slandard of living and their moral and matcri11l development. The industri:.d labour problerm in this coun- !r), having their roots in the historica l background of social, economic "."d politiciil conditions, have litt!e in common with such problems in t:Je Unired St<~tes or other de\doped countries. The'refore, the American l:n" or. thought "hould not be too readily and indiscriminately followed. [861 D-Ol 1:1 W;..:·•. no!icr n:lu:inK to "'orl::mcn ;, 1\ complellt and ~ens :tiv~. :or~~ of pui:l!c policy, becJJu,.~. the relative ·;t·Jtus of *<>rkmcn· m the K":1ety. th::i~ ccmmitment to in:hJ5try, tl"•!ir ;•ttitude tOwards the manaj!C· m_:n_t. th~ir m0tivation towurds productivity. and their standard ~nd w~y -~: ,:,r:. ~rt "'· couditi uncJ by 111ac~·'· ~ ! is not :.1 pure!v econom1c pohc\' 1il 11 h:t., an ·~rTJ'llo yer <~nd 1111 employe<: olonc are entercst:d. but. •h:: . fon,umer and the wciety at large and t'! fortiori ,the State, ar~ al~ vttull)' :~11¢rc •t:J. No WUJF policy t:~n ever he upplicd in "acuum m drsrc~:ard f\( the r~ilitie~ or the &oeial and ~conomic condition' in our ~Un!rY C~:l\i.'krin' th~ qu~ tion or' wages In the b11ckgroun.l of th.: D•rcchv.: Prrncrpl~ 1n the Con~titution, a wage' ~tructure shou14 sl!l've to p_romotc II f,.,, r,·murl':r"rion to labour en~uring due: social dign•ty, personahty 1rnd \~~ •·:.a·. :1 lair rdurn to cupibl, 11nd sn-cngthen incentives to eff!c•:ncy~ . ...,nl':.- .tt 1-.:.:inr. unmindful or !he legitimate interests and e~pe_ctaho.n~ of rt,e c~n\Utr.r!T in tho: m~tttcr of prk:e•. Guided by th.s prmc•plc. •f. the fh •nc•~l c;~pacity ot 11n indu~try oermit• the ~~~<orkers should he allowc~ " du~ '"ar ~ in th: PrcY.operity o! the inJustrv to "-'hich they have con~n ~~·•.~J h~· t~~ir lahour, ~o 0~ to en'lble them, within r•:a\onahl~ l·m,h. 0 :mMove their 5lnndnrd of living. (863 D·Hl ') 1 But in th.: nr~-cnt cas• tbc T ribun .. l hr1d com milled u ~;riou ' ,:.,,,. in rot •·o.,, ;,•.··in~ :h~ o;h'!r nllowanc~ ond amcni!ics :lllo,,cd to· i . ': It I' I . .8.56 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 s.c.a . kmen and comparing their total wage packet with the A respondcnts-wor et of those. employee~ to whom t~e allowan~ had ~n tot31 wage h pac~etermining the question. Tbe difference between the aUow~~ w en d to the workmen and to the sta!f to whom vacation ameruues a)Jowe een ranted must in law and justice be looked into and allowaoc,~ basthebn de~ided whether o1r nor the present workmen's 'demand· the que. ton B C] is justified. [863 H-864 A, - The principle of region-cu1~-indus~ry . has no d?ubt to oo kept in B Ticw but then the comparable mdustnc~ In the regtOn ~ve to be comi- dered from all the relevant asJ:ecls whtclt _have been la!d ~own by this Court in variou.~ decisions. The fact th~t m the refinenes tn the regi011 similar allowance is granted as a result of settlement cannot, on that :~ccount alone, be considered to be irrelevant, bec~use, tha.t may . appro- priately indicate that the demand of the workm.,;n tn those mdustnes was not considered. unjust. (864 B-DJ C The total wage packet of the -various categories of employees in the - appellant's industry it ~
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.