LexTHE INDIAN OXYGEN LIMITED versus WORKMEN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Al. J\'ftr"J'tlnan ,f\·(1111bf11r v. Statr '!l J(aalrr Subba Ran, J. 1962 Dernnbtr, G. 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l963]SUPP. this finding and request the High f'..ourt to submit a revised finding' on the said question within two months from tbe receipt of the record. The res- pondent may file a further statement if I e so chooses to explain or even to correct the valuation list al- ready filed by it. Thereafter an opportunity will be given tq the appellant to file his objections. The objections filed by the appellant in this Court may be also considered by the High Court. The High Court will s,1bmit the finding. on the evidence already on record including the said objections and statements. The parties may file ob- jections to the finding within two weeks from the date the said finding is received. The appeal will be posted a.~ early as possible after obj~cti, 'llS are filed or after the expiry of the time given for filing the objections. 011se rem-itted for suhrnission of fresl1 finding. THE INDIAN OXYGEN LIMITED v. WORKMEN A~D OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GuPTA and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) In<!ustrial Dispute-II' age scales-0/assijical ion. The appellant contended that though the wage scales were fixed in 1949, as in 1957, the question of revi•ion of wage scales had hc•n brought hefore another Tribunal which rcfuse<l 1evision except in the case of Maz<loors I and 2, revision ought not to have been allowed and that. the Tribunal had compared the wage scales of the appellant with those with which they were not comparable and further that the Tribum1) 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 737 had itself made some obvious mistakes which were later cor· m:ted, and that therefore the wage scales fixed by the Tribunal required review. As to classification it was contended that the Tribunal should have itself classified the workmen and not left th}• question . to the appellant as it would lead to further disputes. Htld, that on the facts of the case there was need for revision of wage scales and that substantially the comparison made was with engineering concerns, on which the appellant itself had relied. Though in some cases higher scales had been given to the workmen, the wage scales fixed by the Tribunal were justified. Hekl, further, that though there we1e some alips in matterl of detail in the award. of the tribunal which had been rectified by it except for correcting one obvious slip which it had failed to correct the Award of the Tribunal could not be said to be vitiated. Hekl, also, that classification is of two kinds (1) classifica· tion of jobs and (2) fitting of existing staff' into the various classified jobs. The first classification is a matter for the Tri· bunal whereas the second kind generally speaking may appro- priately be left to the employer to be done 1n consultation with the Union, and it is only a disputed case which may be referred, it necessary, to the Tribunal. Nootx Dru Okanera v. Ju Workmen, [1962) I L.L.J. 27'1 and French Motor Oar Oo. Ltd. v. Worbnm, [1963) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16, refrrrtd to. As the Tribunal had directed only the second type of classification to be done by the appellant in consultation with the Union, the direction was not erroneous. CTVIL APPELLATE juRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 528 of 1962. · Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March IO, 1962, of the Industrial Tribunal, Maha- rashtra, in Reference No. (IT) 114 of 1961. M. 0. Set,alvad, Attorney-General of India, Pu- rushottam Trfoumdaa, J.B. Dadachanji, O~O. Mathur a~d Ravindet N c1rain1 for the appellant. 1962 1111 l•m•• Oxy1t• Limited •• Wo1kmen 1962 The Indian Oxyien Limilerl v. i1'o·kmrn Wanchoo, J, 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 0. L. Dudhia Yatik Rehman and K. L. llathi, for respondents Nos. l and 2. 1962. December 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANcHoo, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra in a dispute between the appellant- company and its workmen. The reference was on six matters, namely, (i) wage scales, (ii) adjustments, (iii) increments, (iv) classification, (v) designation of certain workmen, and (vi) merger of dearness allowance. The tribunal rejected the demands relating to increments and merger of dearness allowance. With respect to the other four matters referred to it, the tr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.