WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 03-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1968 
R-.uh•ar Praatl 
•• 
M/1. Shyom B1hori/a/ 
l•:annatli 
Ratiub., 
J. 
/9f, J 
Moy3. 
SUPREltfE COURT REPORTS [1964] VC>i, 
abated as all the appellants had a common right 
and interest in getting a decree of ejectment against 
defendant No. 2 and such decree cmdd have been 
on a ground common to all of them. 
The defen-
dant cannot be ejected from the premises when he 
has a right to remain in occupation of the premises 
on the basis of the decree holding that Kedar Nath, 
one of the persons having a joint interest in letting 
out the property could not have ejected him. It is 
not possible for the defendant to continue as tenant 
of one of the landlords and not as a tenant of the 
others when all of them had a joint right to eject 
him or to have him as their tenant. 
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
---
WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD. 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN 
. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, 
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
Industrial Displlie-Production 
bonus 
scheme-Made 
applicable onlv to workmen in factory-Olaim by workmen of 
sales office-Sales office and factory whether part of same unit of 
industrial production-Inspectors, salesmen and retail salesmen, 
whether workmen-U. P. Industrial DiBputes Act, 1947 (U.P. 
28 of 1947). 
The appellant company was engaged in the manufacture 
and sale of matches in four places in India, including Bareilly, 
in which there were factories as well as sales offices. As an 
ince'Dtive to larger production of matches the company intro-
duced In 1945 a Production Bonus Scheme which was made 
• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
561 
applicable to workmen engaged in the factory in making 
matches as also to those working in the factory office. In 1947, 
it was withdrawn in hs application to the sales office. The 
workmen of th• sales office consisting of clerical staff' as also 
salesmen and ins]>"ctors of salesmen made a claim to Produc-
tion bonus p.;intinir out that there should be no discrimination 
between the employees in the same company. The company 
resisted the claim on the grounds : (I) that the sales office 
was entirely independent of the factory, and (2) that the sales-
men, retail salesmen and inspectors employed by the sales office 
were not workmen within the meaning of the U.P. 
Disputes Act, 1947. The facts showed: (I) that there was 
interdependence of the two activities viz., manufacture of 
matches in the factory and their <ale by the sales office, inas-
much as (a) the sales office could not exist without the factory, 
(bl the factory itself could not conveniently function without a 
sales 
and (c) the factory arranged its volume of 
production in accordance with ·the programme made from 
time to time by the sales manager; (2) that the sales office and 
the factory had the same banking account, though separate 
cheque books were maintained and operated upon ; (3) that 
the financial forecasts that were made for the Bareilly branch 
from time to time made no distinction between the disburse-
ments in the sales office and the factory ; (4) the rules and 
practice in connection with the recruitment, control and disci-
pliae of man-power, as also documents, including letters of 
appointment and standing orders and the muster rolls were 
kept distinct and separate between the factory and the sales 
office; and (5) the sales office paid rent to the factory flr the 
area occupied hy it by means of book adjustments. The evi-
dence also showed that 75% of the time of the workmen in the 
sales office was devoted to writing work. 
Held that, on the facts, there was functional integrality 
and inter-dependence or community of financial control and 
manae;ement of the sales oft ice and the factory in the appellant 
company and that the two must be considered part of one and 
the same unit of industrial production. 
Held further, that the inspectors, salesmen and retail 
salesmen were workmen as defined in the U.P. Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
Nos. 301)-301 of 1963 • 
• 
195J 
W11t1m WM 
Maf<h Co , l.J,. 
v. 
Tfllit W"km•• 
/963 
Wullm India 
M•tdl Co., Ltd. 
•• 
Their Workmen 
562 
SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
Appeals by special leave from the award dated 
October 23, 1962 of the Industrial Tribunal (III), 
Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 33 of 1961. 
G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadaohanji, 0. O. Mathur and 
Ravinder Narain, for the appellant in C.A. No. 300 
of 1963 and the respondent in C.A

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