LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus KAMANI EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
108 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A v. KAMAN! EMPLOYEES' UNION & ORS. April 27, 1973 f,P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND G. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] Industrial Disputes A.ct, 1947, S .. 10(l)(d)-Dispute relating to revision of H Production bonus 1·eferred to Tribunal-Subsequently another reference made .as to question whether a scheme of Production bonus adopted by ·another com- _pany .should be adopted or not-Second reference is connected with first dispute and 1s comvetent. On Decemb"er 19, 1962 the Government of M2harashtra referred certain disputes between the respondent workmen and their employers, to the Industrial Tribunal. Dispute no. 3 related to Production bonus payable to the workmen under the existing scheme. When the adjudication of the above reference was C pending, the State Government on January 18, 1964 made another. reference to the Tribunal of the question : "Should the existing Incentive Sche;me of Pro- duction bonu> b: replaced by the new scheme evolved by Messrs. Ibcon Private Limited in their report dated October 1963 as desired by the Management?" The respondent union filed an application 1 before the Tribunal that tl;le second reference dated January 18, 1964 should not be adjudicated upon as it really .amounted to withdrawal of the previous reference made on December 19, 1962, and interfered with the powers of the Tribunal in dealing with dispute no. 3 in the first reference. The Tribunal overruled the objection but the High Court D in a writ petition under Art. 226 accepted the contention of the union. Jn appeal by the State on certificate, HELD : Even without the second reference, the ·Tribunal, when dealing with demand no. 3 of the first reference. could have also considered the question of adopting the scheme evolved by Ibcon Private Limited, because it was a rele- vant matter, and also connected with the Production Bonus Scheme. When it was so open to the Tribunal to consider the Scheme of Jbcon the fact that the Government specifically referred for consideration the said Scheme, makes no difference. At anv rate the question covered by the second reference was a matter 'connected with or relevant' to disvuJe· no. 3 of the first reference and hence the State was. well within its jurisdiction under section lO(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act in passing the order dated January 18, 1964. Accord~ ingly, the appeal must be allowed and th~ .judgment and order of the High ·Court must be set aside. [lllG] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1098 of 1969. Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated March 15, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1067 -of 1964. M. C. Bhandare, and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. E F R. P. Kapur, for respondent No. 2. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VAIDIALINGAM, J.-This appeal, on certificate, by the State of Maharashtra is directed against the judgment. and _o~der of .the. Bombay High Court dated March 15, 1967, in Special CIVIi Appbcation No. 1067 of 1964, quashing the order of the . State G_ovem!llent dated January 18, 1964, making a reference to the Industnal Tnbunal. H At the outset it must be stated that the workmen who filed the -Writ Petition in the High Court and got an order in their favour, have • A B c D . E II G . . . . ~ MAHARASHTRA v. K,AMANJ EMPLOYEES' ,UNION (Vaidialingam, I.) 109 not appeai;ed befor~ us to SUj)port the order of the ITigh Court .. On behalt of tne management, which was a party .before the Tribunal and before the High Court, it has been represented that it is no longer interested in these proceedings. · . • · - It is necessar; to state a few facts leading upto the filing of the writ petition in the High Court. Qn December 19; 1962, the State G~ve=ent referred certain disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tnbuna!. The matters in disputes included various items; but it is only necessary to refer to dispute No. 3. which related to the Production bonus. That dispute relating to Production Bonus in Part I for Daily Rated workmen was as follows :- "3. ·Production Bonus. The present incentive scheme should be revised as under :- (a) The scheme should be mad.e applicable to all the departments of the company. __, · (b) When the production in the establishment reaches 500 tons in a month all the daily rated workers should get 10 per cent of their tQtal earnings as production bonus. The number of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.