THE WORKMEN OF WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD. versus THE WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD.,

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 11-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE WORKMEN OF WESTERN INDIA 
MATCH CO. LTD. 
v. 
THE WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD., 
(A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
27 
1 ndustrial Dispute-Scale bf pay-Oondition of aervice 
') -Dearness allowance-Employees of sales office and factory, 
·• if cojtld be 
equated - Earlier settlement-Termi..ation of-
Oharter of demand, if co·ald be treated a• notice of termination 
of previous settlement-Industrial DispvJte Act, 1947(14 of 
1947), 8. 19( 2). 
R the respondent company has got a factory, with an 
office a ttachcd thereto, in Alambazar a suburb ot Calcutta 
and also has its sale~ office in the commercial area of Calcutta 
Without first giving a formal notice under s. 19(2) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, terminating an earlier settlement, 
the Union made fresh demands, contained in a cliiirter of 
demands, inter alia for the enhancement of dearness allow-
}' ance, alteration of the ba~is of computing it and the revision 
of pay scale alleging that what they get is much below what 
corresponding employees at the sales office get and . that the 
. present rates are inadequate in view of the rise in cost of 
living. 
• 
f 
The dispute relating to dearness allowance alone was 
first referred to the Tribunal but later the dispute relating to 
grades and scale of pay was also referred to the same Tribu• 
nal.. 
The Tribunal after overruling the preliminary objection 
of the company that it had no jurisdiction to proceed wtih 
the reference because no notice terminating the settlement as 
cont~mplateol by s. 19(2) of the Act was given by the work-
men, found that the employees were not entitled to higher 
dearness allowance or to the alteration of the. basis of comp-
utation of the dearness allowance, but there has been a change 
in the circumstances which justified a revision of the scale of 
pay. 
Held, 
(1) that when during the pendency of negotia-
tions the Union by a letter had asked the company to treat 
the charter of demand as a notice under s. 19(2) of the Act 
'<( without first terminating an earlier settlement under an award 
and the compa.ny had agreed to refer the mat\er i!l dispute 
19fB 
A;f'il 11. 
11~1 
Tiii ti'-flmtn of 
W 1st"n H atd1 Co. 
Lid, .. 
1 li1 W ultrn Indio 
Jf okh Co. Lid 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
to ~he adjudication of a tribunal, the question of a formal 
notice under s. 19(2) of the Act was immaterial for the 
r · 
presentation of the charter of demand followed by 'the letter 
"' 
amounted to a notice of termination of settlement . 
· 
(2) 
that the members of a Unior. like the one of 
employees of the respondent's factory have been dealt with 
by the compa.ny on a different footing from the employees of 
a s~les o~ftcc 1n Calcuua, the former being employees of an 
eng1neer1ng concern and the latter of a mercantile one, who 
arc governed by the recommendation of the Bengal Chamber 
of Comrncrce and, therefore, the case of the factory employees / 
cannot be equated with that or the sales office ernployecs. 
4
,,. 
The facrory employees cannot, as of right, demand that the 
brnefit of the rates fixed by the Bengal Chamber of Com· 
mcrce be also given to them, because the rates were not 
intended to be applied to them. 
C/erl:s of Ga/cnlla Traminays v. Galmtta Tramwnys Co. 
J,td. [1956) S.C.R. i22, applied. 
'-
' 
(3) 
that there 
is no valid rea•on 
for 
compelling 
employers 
to 
offer 
uniform 
tcrn1s 
of employment 
to 
their employees 
working in different 
establishments 
hecausc variou5 considt>ration:-. must enter into the que1tion 
~./.... 
such as the value of their work to the employer, the CmJr 
toyer's ability tn pay, the cost of living, the availability of 
persons for doing the particular kind of work and so on. 
The action of an employers who docs not offer uniform 
condition of service to all its employrcs doing work which, 
broadly speaking may be called similar, can not be regarded 
as discritninatory or a breach of any principle of industrial 
law. 
(4) 
that the Industrial Tribunal in refusing to extend 
to the employees of the respondent in the fartory in Alamba· 
zar benefit of dearness allowance formulated by the Bengal 
Chamber of Commerce has net contravened any principle 
of natnral justice or any important principle of industrial 
law. Even assuming that 
an Industrial 
Tribunal 
has 
exercised its discretion wrongly in not awarding uniform • 
dearness allnwance to all the employees of the same employer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.