LexUNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD. versus THE WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G .. I B UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD. v. THE WORKMEN February 24, 1972 567 JC. A. VAIDIALINGAM, I. D. DUA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] Industrial Dispute-Dearness All.owance-Deprrciation reserve~ whe- ther to be deducted from profits--Concern.r with foreign collaboration wh~ ther can be compared with purely Jndia.n Companies-Slab system- Classification of grade~ and fixation of wages-Gratuity-Incentive Bonu's Sche1ne. The appellant carried on the business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products in Greater Bombay. In disputes arising OOtween the ~ppellant and the respondents the Industrial Tribunal had to deal with questions relating to dearness allowance, classification of grades and fixa- tion of wag.es .and the incentive bonus scheme as modified by the com- pany. In appeal against the aw-..rd of the Tribunal, HELD: (i) The decisions of this Court in Gramophone Company Ltd. v. its Workmen and The !11dian Link Chain Manufacturers Ltd. v. Their Workmen show that the Tribunal .was justified in computing gross profits without deduc~ting taxation, deprectation and development rebate~ The latter decision is directly jn point to the effect that 'provision ~or ·depre- ciation cannot be deducted. [582E., 585B·CJ Gramophone Company Ltd. v. Jts'Workmen, [191i4] II L.L.J. 131 and The Indian Link Chain Manufacturers Ltd. "f. Their WOrkmen, l1971] 2 S.C.R. 759, applied. Ahniedabad Mil/owners' Association Etc~ v. The Textile Labour A.rso- ciat'ion, [1966] I S.C.R. 382, referred to. · (ii) so long and to the extent that concerns having foreign c§ll_abora- tion are doing business in India and in a pafticular concerood region· there is no reason why they should not be taken into account for purposes ·of being teated as comparable unfts, provided th-.lt the tests for. such purp06es as laid down by this Court are satisfied. TOO object of industrial. adju- dication is to secure as far as possible unifdrmity of iervice conditions among industrial units in the same regiOn. If a concern having foreign collaboration properly satisfies the tests of comparability it would be im- proper to regard such unit as uncomparable merely on the ground' that it is a concern with foreign collaboration or interest and ~t the unit with which it is 'ought to be compared. is entirely of Indian origin and resources. !591A·CI Ch•mical IndustrieS"and Pharmaceutical Laboratories Limit<d (Cipla) ·Bombay v. Their W<!rkmen, [1957] !.C.R. Bombay 1206 and Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. Baroda v. Its Workmen [1967] I S.C.R. 652, Hindust,in Antibiotics Ltd. v. The Workmen and Ors.,. [1967] I S.C.R. 652, relied on. (iii) On the materials before it the Tribunal was justified in treating M/S. Burroughs Wellcome & Co. as a unit comparable with the appellut. 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 S.C.R. The fact that Burroughs Wellcome .employed a le.,.r labour force did not deserve much · impOrtance beoause the business performance of the two companies was equal. Once Burroughs Wellcome Co. was timted as a comparable unit the wage scales awarded by the Tribunal oj(mld not be considered to be unjustified. [598G-599A-D] Workmen of New Egerton Woollen Mills v. New Egerton Woollen Mills and Ors., [1969) II L.L.J. 782, applied. (iv) On the facts of the case it was not possible t<? disagree with the view of the Tribunal that the impact of the Drugs (Price Con.trol) Order will not be such as to affect materially the business pf~pects of the appellant company. If the Order materially aff<•cts the prosperity of the appiilant's trade it would be open to it to raise '3. dispute for the reduction in the wage structure and in case they are able to show that in view of the Dlrugs (Price Control) Order their financial position has weakened to ·such an extent that they c:annot he'll' the burden of the wage structure .fixed by the present award, the matter may have to be examined on its merits. [598B.CJ · Wi/liamsons (India) Private, Ltd. v. It• Workmen, [1962] 1 L.L.J. 302. referred to. (v) The Tribunal hod acted within its jurisdiction in classifying the workmen and fixing the sc:iles of pay after fitting them in particular categories. The objection based on s. 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 must be rejected. [599E-600B] (vi) When the Tribunal raised in the gratuity scheme the ceiling limit from 15 months to 17t months according to the pattern obtaining in Burroughs Wellcome Compan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.