LexTHE KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD., KIRKEE, POONA versus THE WORKMEN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 'l'HE KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD., KIRKEE, POONA v. THE WORKMEN AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 491 Industrial Dispute-Reference-Award-Clnrification of award by Tribunal-Scope-Industrial Dispute;; Act, 1947(14 of 1947), s. 36A. ' Certain disputes between the appellant and its workmen were referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication by the State Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award made by the tribunal provid- ed, inter alia, ( 1) that if a workman had to work on a weekly off or on a holiday he should be paid I: times his wages and dearness allowance over and above a substituted holiday, and (2) that all the workmen shall be granted 15 days pri- vilege leave in a year which could be allowed to be accumulat- ed up to 45 days. The appellant applied to the Govern- ment under s. 36A of the Act stating that the directions given by the tribunal had to be clarified on the grounds, inter alia, (I) that the reason for directing the additional payment for working on a weekly off or on a holiday was that the workman was deprived of an opportunity to spend his time in the com- pany of his colleagues and refresh himself, but that there was no basis for this since the whole factory worked on weekly off or on a holiday, and (2) that the accumulation of privilege leave of 45 days to all workmen was not justified. The tri- bunal made a clarification as regards privilege leave confining it to only those workmen who had put in 240 days or more of actual working during the previous calendar year so as to be in conformity with the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, but as regards others matters it held that the directions given were quite clear and that under the guise of, clarification the appellant: could not !eek a modification of the award under s. 36A. Held, that 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was intended to empower a tribunal to clarify the provisions of the award passed by it where a difficulty or doubt arose about their interpretation, and not to review or modify its own order. Any question about the propriety, correctness or validity of any provision of the award would be outside the purview of the enquiry contemplated by that section. 1961 Nooember J 7. lf!al -,,, K11losl:ot Oil Entt:JJ l..JJ., J;irktt, PoC111<J v. 1 ht I Vor1nk u /Jajt11d1agar!ka1 J. 492 SUPREME COURT REPORT3 [1962] SUPP. C1v1L APPLELLATE JtJRJFllICTJOIS: Civil Ap1ieal No. 587 of l 9ti0. Appeal by opccial leave frcm the ~wi;rd dated Dect'mbcr Hi, l\J58, of the Jmlustrial Tribunal, Bombay, iu Refo1<·nce (1. T.) No. 387of1958. M. C. Sctulvad, Atl-Orney-Ge11cral of India and I. N. Shroff, fort.he appellant. K. R. Clwudkuri, for respondent No. I. Naunit-Lal, fur respondent No. 2. 1961. N oYembcr 17. The Judgment of the Court "as delivered Ly GAJmWRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave arises out of the prnoeedings taken at the instance of the appellant, the Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Kirkee, Poona under s. 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, l 9n (14 of 1947) (hereafter called the Act). It appears that certain disputes pending between the appellant and the respondents, its workmen, were refened to the industrial tribunal for its adjudication by the Government of Maha- rashtra. The disputes in question related to seven demands made hy the responclentl:! : two of these were in regard to privilege leave and allownees. The tribunal which tried the dispute ma.de its award in two parts. Part I of the awe.rd which dealt the demand of privilege leave and different kinds of allowances was made on Jw1e 30, 1958, and pub· Jished on July . 7, 1958. On August 2, 1958, the appellant applied to the State Government for reference of certain points to the tribunal for its clarification under 1. 36A. Accordingly an order of reference was made in reept>ct of the two itrnis vrivilegc leave and allowa.ncce. The tribunal has made the necessary clarification in regard to its direction as to privilege leave. It has, however, held that the direction mado by it for the payment to tho workmen under paragraph 14 of its award needed no clarification. It held that in substance • - (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 493 the appellant was seeking for a modification of the said direction and that could not be done in the clarification proceedings contemplated by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.