LexWORKMEN EMPLOYED BY HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. versus HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • , • • WORKMEN EMPLOYED BY HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD • v. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED August 28, 1984 [0.A. DESAI, V. BALAKR!SHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act 1947, sec, 2(k)-Jnd11strial disputes-Den1and by workmen for confirmation in the pron1oted posts-Whether industrial dispute- Whether Industrial Tribunal has jurisdictjon to entertain such a demand. Promotions-Whether giving pron1otion and confirmation in the promoted posts is wholly a management funct;on. Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act, for short) defines an 'industrial dispute' to mean any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or betwee!n employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the emyloymcnt or non_ employment or the terms of cmployn1cnt or with the conditions of Jabour, of any person. Section 7-A of the Act provides that the appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette constitute one or more Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any n1atter whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule. Entry at plecitum 7 in the Third Schedule reads •Classification by grades', Sec, 4 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (1946 Act, for short) also requires the employer in an industrial establishment to make provision in the standing orders for every matter set out in the Sche- dule which is applicable to the industrial establishment. The Schedule pro .. vides, an1ongst others, for making provision in the standing orders for classi- fication of workmen for example, whether permanent, temporary apprentices, probationers or badlis. The Government of Maharashtra referred to the Industrial Tribunal a dispute between appellants-workmen and the respondent-employer as to whether "Aii the employees who are acting continuously in higher grades for more than three months should be confirmed in the respective grades imme. diately and a11 the benefits should be given to the concerned employees with retrospective effect had they been confirmed imn1ediately after three months of their continuous acting." The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the dispute was not an industrial dispute \vi thin the n1caning of the ex- pression in the Act, because if the dc111and as raised is conceded, it would tantamount to allowing the work1ncn to decide the work force requiied in A B c D E F G various grades which is a mana~erial function, The Industrial Tribunal up. H A B c D E 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] I S.C.R. held the preliminary objection and rejected the Reference as incompetent holding that the demand shorn of verbiage is one for promotion which is the man.igerial 'i functiOn and therefore cannot be the subject matter of industrial adjudication. Hence this appeal by special lc::ave. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for dispos- ing of the Reference on merits, HELD : (1) It is well settled that certified Standing Orders under the 1946 Act which have a statutory flavour prescribe the conditions of service and they shall be deemed to be incorporated in the contract of employment of each workin3.0. with his employer. Since there is a statittOry obligation on the emp• toyer in an 'industrial establishment' to cJassifi workmen under the 1946 Act, the classification would be· permanent, temporary, apprentices, probationers and all other known categories, such as, acting, officiatingetc. In respect of the classification, a dispute can conceivably arise between the employer and the workmen because failure of the employer to carry out the statutory obJiga .. tion would enable the workman to question his action~ which will bring into existence a disoute. It would become an industrial dispute 6ecause it would be connected with the condition of employment. It becomes a condition of emp.. Ioyment because necessary conditions of serVice have been statutoriJy pre- scribed one such being classification of workmen. Therefore, without anything more where the demand of the workmen was to confirm employees employed in an acting capacity in a grade, it would unquestionably be an industrial dispute. [646 C-G] Sudhlr Chandra Sarkar .v. TaJa Iron & Steel Co, Ltd., [1984] 3 S.C.C. - 269, referred to. (2) Even if one does not reach the conclusion that the dispute raised in question would be an industrial dispute
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.