LexTHE HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD., NEW DELHI versus THEIR WORKMEN VICE VERSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 "Vehru Motor TrOtrS• port Co·of1tr•lir1 Socitt) Lid. v. SllJU of Raja.""1it Wanchoo, J. 1962 D"""b"', .H. 231 SUPREME COURT REPORts [1964] Vot. \Ve therefore dismiss the petition but in the circumstances of this case pass no order asto costs. THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LT1)., NEW DELHI v. THEIR WORKMEN VICB VERSA (P. B. GAJENDRAOADKA.R, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GuPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Industrial Di~pute--Fi•·atiun of waye structure-Factor.• lo be co11sidered-Fair IVage-Lidng IVagc-l!:xtent of power to interfere under Art. 136 with w~gc •cale fixed by Tribunal- Dearness allowance on basis of ,,/iJiny ocafcs-/nterim agreement r<ganling interim relief not to be ignured-Lea.1:r, rule.s-Grutu. ity-J!.ietireni.ent 1tqe-Retrusper:tit·c t1pr:rr1ti1J1l t1f azvard-J)c/hi Shops & Jtstablisliment Act, 1954 (Ddlii 7 of 1Vii4)-1!:111ployw' Stale In.rnrance Act, 1948 (34 of 1!148)-lwlu..•trial Di8putes Act, 1947, (U of 1!147). The Chief Commissioner, Delhi, referred an L1dwtrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, which gave its award on March 16, 1959. Both the appellant and the respondents were dissatisfied with the award and they came to this Court by Sp<.'Cii.l leave. The award was challenged by the appellant with regard to scales of pay, dearness allo- wance, adjustments, leave rules, gratuity and rctro.<1pectivc effect of the award. The respondents attacked the award as reg~rds the working hours, l•ave rules and retirement age. Ile/a, that while social justic demand• that workmen should get a fair share of the national income which they help to produce, it has also to be seen that that docs not result in the drying up of the source of national income itself. lnroada 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 235 on the profits of the capitalists should not Le such as have a tendency to drive capital away from fruitful employment and thereby affect prejudicially capital formation itself. The Tribu· nal had applied the correct principles and the award should not be disturbed. Held, also, that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a Jixt:d dearness allowance of Rs. 25!.. The object of dearness allowance being to neutralise part of the rise or fall in the cost of living, it should ordinarily be on a sliding scale. '· Held, that the contention of the appellant that in view of 1he provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, no provision need be made about sickness leave at all, was rejected. It was pointed out that in providing for periodical payments to an insured worker in case of sickness or for medical treatment or attendance to him or the members of his family under the Act of 1948, the Legislature did not intend to substitute any of these benefits for the workmen's rig~t to get leave on full pay on the ground of sickness. Held, that as regards those workmen to whom the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. applied, the Tribunal had acted illegally in fixing the period of sick leave at 15 days and permitting accumulation. The appellant shall allow to the work· men to whom the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act applied, sickness or casual leave for a tnt ·il period of 12 days with full pay and allowances, and such leave shall not accumulate. As it was not desirable to . have two separate leave rules for two classes of workmen, one to whom the Aot of 1954 applied and the other to whom the Act did not apply, it was held that the •ame rule should apply to other workers also. Held, also, that the scheme of gratuity as framed by the tribunal was not unduly favourable to workmen and it also did not place any undue strain on the financial resources of the Com· pany. As regards the provision in the gratuity scheme that an employee who is dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to any gratuity; it was held that the proper provision should be that where an employee is dismissed for misconduct which has resulted in financial loss to the employer, the amount of loss should be deducted from the amount of gratuity due. The award of the Tribunal on the question of retirement age was set aside and the retirement age was fixed at 58, subject to the proviso that it would be open to the company to conti· nue in its employment a workman who had passed that age. The rule was to apply to all the employees of the Company. 1962 Tht Hindustan T'un~s Ltd., New D1lhl •. Thllr Workn.t 1962 TIM Hintf11sta11 TU1111 ltd., New Del
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.