LexPRECISION BEARINGS INDIA LTD. versus BARODA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G 46G PRECISION BEARINGS INDIA LTD. v. BARODA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ANR. December 16, 1977 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.j Industrial Dispute-Award not covered by the reference n1ust be quashed-- Rei·ision of dearness alluwunce-Additional financial burden l~·hich revision of dearness allowance would impose upon the employer and his ability to bear such burden are relevant considerations. One of the five principles laid down by this Court, in Bengal Chemical & Pharn1aceur;cal Works Ltd. v. Its work1nen [1969] 2 S.C.R. 113, for consider~ ing a revision of dearness allowance, is the additional financial burden which dearness allowance would impose upon the employer and his ability to bear such burden. • In its charter of demands, the respondent workmen Union made specific de111ands viz.; (i) that the existing minimum dearness allo\vance of Rs. 146/- be modified and that all the workers incJuding workers known as staff should be paid minimum dearness allowance at the rate of full dearness allowance that is being paid to textile workers at Ahmedabad i.e. 100% of Ahmedabad Textile rate and (ii) with the above minimum dearness allowance, they should be further continued the higher dearness allo\vance of 40o/o plus Ahmedabad Textile D.A. for those in the pay range of Rs. 100-200 and 20% plus Ahme- dabad Textile D.A. for those in the pay- range of above Rs. 200 /-. The dis- pute was referred by the Government in the form viz. "All workmen should br paid dearness allowance at the rate of 10090 dearness allo\vance paid to the workers of the Cotton Textile Mills, at Ahmedabad". The Tribunal, however, granted over and above· the 100% Ahmedabad Textile D.A., varying percent- ages fron1 80o/o to 89% phased in a particular way. ,L\llowing in part, the appeal by special leave the Court. HELD : lt is true that in considering the question of dearness1 allowance the capacity of the Company to pay is one of the most important considerations. In the instant case (a) in view of the fact that although a substantial sum was kept as reserve towards the replacement costs only a fraction of it was utilised. the company therefore cannot make any grievance about the award that this could be done in a phased manner. The Tribunal has exhaustively gone into the n1atter with care and kept in view the five principles in Bengal Chentical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Work~nen [19691 2 S.C.R. 113; (b) The Tribunal in view of the content of the dispute referred to it had no jurisdiction in this reference to grant anything more than lOOo/o of the Ahme- dabad Textiles D.A. on the outside. Since the Tribunal, after having given appropriate con-sideration to a11 aspects of the matter granted varying per- centages from 80% to 89o/o phased in a particular way, it had virtually reJected the Union's claim for 100% of the Textile D.A. Having done so, there was no scope for allowing to the higher brackets of wage earners in addition 40o/o and 20% of basic wages, as dearness allowance. [468C, G-H, 469G-H] Obiter: Social justice perspectives being integral to industrial jurisprudence the high cost allowance as a component of D.A, is not impermissible in principle. rt is a legitimate item. Indeed in the instant case, the lowest bracket upto Rs. 100/- needed full neutralisation of the rise in the cost of living. Such a H dispute may well be referred by Govenment, if it considers fit, and the deci- sion in this case will not bar such a cause. (470C-D] Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Killick & Allied Conipanies Employees Union [1Q75] Supp. S.C.R. 453 refrned to. / PRECISION BEARINGS LTD. v. MAZDOOR SABHA (Goswami, J.) 467 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1977. Appeal by Special Leave from the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat dated 8th October, 1976 in Reference No. 11 of_ 1975., pub- lished in the Gazette Part 1-L dated November 11, 1976. H. R. Gokhale, A. P. Hathi and As/wk Grover for the Appellant. R. K. Garg, P. H. Parekh, Miss Manju Jetley aoo K. Vasudev for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A B Gosw4MI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, of October 8, 1976. Al- though it is a composite award disposing of two references by the State Government we are concerned in this appeal with Reference C (IT) No. 11 of. l975 as per the State Government notifica
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.