Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KAMANI EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1973
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
CITATION:
1975 AIR 635 1974 SCR (1) 108
1975 SCC (4) 841
ACT:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 10(1)(d)-Dispute relating
to revision of Production bonus referred to Tribunal-
Subsequently another reference made as to question whether a
scheme of Production bonus adopted by another company should
be adopted or not-Second reference is connected with first
dispute and is competent.
HEADNOTE:
On December 19. 1962 the Government of Maharashtra referred
certain ,disputes between the respondent workmen and their
employers, to the Industrial Tribunal. Dispute no. 3
related to Production bonus payable to the workmen under
the existing scheme. When the adjudication of the above
reference was pending, the State Government on January 18,
1964 made another reference to the Tribunal of the question
: "Should the existing Incentive Scheme of Production bonus
be replaced by the new scheme evolved by Messrs. Ibcon
Private Limited in their report dated October 1963 as
desired by the Management ?" The respondent union filed an
application before the Tribunal that the second reference
dated January 18, 1964 should not be adjudicated upon as it
really amounted to withdrawal of the previous reference made
on December 19, 1962, and interfered with the powers of the
Tribunal in dealing with dispute no. 3 in the first
reference. The Tribunal overruled the objection but the
High Court in a writ petition under Art. 226 accepted the
contention of the union.
In appeal by the State on certificate,
HELD : Even without the second reference, the Tribunal, when
dealing with demand no. 3 of the first reference. could have
also considered the question of adopting the scheme evolved
by Ibcon Private Limited because it was a relevant matter,
and also connected with the Production Bonus Scheme. When
it was so open to the Tribunal to consider the Scheme of
Ibcon the fact that the Government specifically referred for
consideration the said Scheme, makes no difference. At any
rate the question covered by the second reference was a
matter ’connected with or relevant’ to dispute no. 3 of the
first reference and hence the State was well within its
jurisdiction under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial
Disputes Act in passing the order dated January 18, 1964.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed and the judgment and
order of the High Court must be set aside. [111G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1098 of
1969.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated
March 15, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil
Application No. 1067 of 1964.
M. C. Bhandare, and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
R. P. Kapur, for respondent No. 2-1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VAIDIALINGAM, J.-This appeal, on certificate, by the State
of Maharashtra is directed against the judgment and order of
the Bombay High Court dated March 15, 1967, Special Civil
Application No. 1067 of 1964, quashing the order of the
State Government dated January 18, 1964, making a reference
to the industrial Tribunal.
At the outset, it must be stated that the workmen who filed
the ’Writ Petition in the High Court and got an order in
their faVour, have
109
not appeared before us to support the order of the, High
Court. On behalf of the management, which was a party
before the Tribunal and before the High Court it has been
represented that ’it is no longer. interested in these
proceedings.
It is necessary to state a few facts leading upto the filing
of the writ petition in the High Court. On December 19,
1962 the State. Government referred certain disputes for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal The matters in
disputes included various items; but it is only necessary to
refer to dispute No. 3 which related to the Production,,
bonus. That dispute relating to Production Bonus in Part I
for Daily Rated workmen was as follows
"3. Production Bonus.
The, present incentive scheme should be
revised as under
(a) The scheme should be made applicable to
all the departments of the company.
(b) When the production in the establishment
reaches, 500 tons in a month all the daily
rated workers should get 10 per cent of their
total earnings as production bonus. The
number of workmen being the average number
employed in the year 1960.
(c) For every 10 tons increase in a month’s
production above 500 tons a 2% increase in the
percentage should be given over and. above
that in clause (b) above.
(d) The existing by laws and clauses
regarding the absenteeism etc. should be
abolished.
(e) Bonus should be determined by the ratio
of days filled in by a worker to the number of
working days in a month.
(f) The above benefits should be paid with
retrospective effect from 1st July 1961."
In part 11. for Monthly Rated employees, the
dispute regarding Production Bonus was as
follows
"3. Production Bonus.
(i) Monthly rated employees connected
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
directly with production should be paid
production bonus at the same rate paid to
daily rated workmen.
(ii) 50% of the average production bonus
paid to the employees directly connected with
production, should be paid as productions
bonus to all other monthly rated employees.
Production bonus for all monthly rated
employees should be paid with retrospective
effect from 1st July, 1961."
When the adjudication on that reference was pending, the
State Government on January 18, 1964. made another reference
to the same Tribunal as follows
"Should the existing Incentive Scheme of Production Bonus be
replaced by the new Incentive Scheme evolved
110
by Messrs. Ibcon Private Limited in their report dated
October 1963 as desired by the Management ?"
In this order of reference, it was stated that a previous
reference had already been made on December 10, 1962,
regarding the revision of production bonus scheme for the
workmen of the company. It is further stated that the
company made a representation Co the State Government that
the terms of reference already made should be supplemented
so as to include the above question also. The State.
Government has also stated in the said order that it is of
the opinion that the matter on which a further reference is
asked for by the employer is "connected with or relevant to
the said dispute". The reference to the "said dispute" is
regarding the revision of production bonus which was already
the subject of the reference dated December 19, 1962.
The Tribunal appears to have passed an award on February 27,
1964, on all the disputes comprised in the 1st Reference
excepting demand No. 3, which, as we have already stated,
relates to the revision of the existing production bonus
scheme. The union filed an application before the Tribunal,
stating that the second reference dated January 18, 1964,
should not be adjudicated upon. This objection was raised
on the ground that the order dated January 18, 1964, really
amounts to the withdrawal of the previous reference made on
December 19 1962 and that it interferes with the exercise of
the powers of the Tribunal in the matter of adjudicating
dispute No. 3 already referred to it’ The management opposed
this application on the ground that the order dated January
18, 1964, does not have the effect of withdrawing the
previous reference and that on the other hand, the dispute
that was referred by order of 1964 was really one "connected
with or relevant to the dispute" which was already pending
adjudication before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal overruled the preliminary objection of the
workmen about the competency of the Reference made on
January 18, 1964; and it resulted in the latter approaching
the High Court under Article 226. The High Court, in its
present order,. accepting the contentions of the union, has
held that the second order. dated January 18, 1964, had
really the effect of superseding- the previous reference
made on December 19, 1962 and also of interfering with the
powers exercised by the Tribunal in respect of the previous
reference.
Mr. Bhandare, learned counsel, for the appellant-State, has
contended that the reasoning of the High Court that the
second order of reference amounts to a withdrawal of the
Previous order dated December 19, 1962, is fallacious. He
has further pointed out that the subject matter of the
reference dated January 18, 1964, could have been included
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
in the order of December 19, 1962 and then it would have
been perfectly competent for the Tribunal to consider the
nature of the modification that is to be effected in respect
of the production scheme then existing in the company. For
that purpose, the Tribunal could have considered the nature
of the modifications required by the workmen as well as the
further question whether the Incentive me evolved by the
Ibcon Private Limited could be adopted. Mr. Bhandare
111
also pointed out that the question covered by the second
reference is really a matter which "connected with or
relevant to the dispute" already pending before the
Tribunal.
We are of the opinion that the contentions of Mr. Bhandare
have to be accepted. We are not able to appreciate the
reasoning of the learned Judges that the order dated
January- 18, 1964, has the effect of withdrawing or
superseding the reference already made on December 19, 1962.
There Will be Withdrawal of a reference, when the dispute
referred is taken out of the purview of the Tribunal. There
will be supersession of a previous Reference, when the
second Reference comprises matters or disputes totally
unconnected with or different from the disputes originally
referred. Neither is the case here. On the other hand, in
our opinion the question regarding the nature of the
modification to be effected to the production bonus scheme
has to be considered by the Tribunal having due regard to
the scheme as it exists as well as to the various
suggestions that may be made by the parties, namely, the
employer and the employee. If the employer had relied on
the scheme evolved by M/s Ibcon Private Ltd., it was
certainly competent for the tribunal to consider how far
that scheme could be adopted in this particular case. This
aspect could have been considered by the Tribunal, because
it is "connected with or relevant to the dispute No. 3"
relating to Production Bonus.
We are not inclined to accept the view of the High Court
that the reference dated January 18, 1964, in any manner
interferes with the powers of the Tribunal in adjudicating
upon the demand No. 3 covered by-the reference dated
December 19, 1962. In fact, in our view, the question that
has been further referred by order dated January 18, 1964,
is really a matter connected with or relevant to dispute No.
3 already pending adjudication before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal had full jurisdiction when dealing with demand No.
3 covered by the order dated December 19, 1962, to consider
the report mentioned in the subsequent reference dated
January 18, 1964. It had full power to consider as to in
what manner and to what extent the modification is to be
effected in the Incentive Scheme obtaining in the company.
In fact. even without the second Reference, the Tribunal,
when dealing with demand No. 3 of the 1st Reference, could
have, also considered the question of adopting the Scheme
evolved by Ibcon Private Limited, because it was a relevant
matter; and also connected with the Production Bonus Scheme.
When lit was so open to the Tribunal to consider the Scheme
of Ibcon, the fact that the Government specifically referred
for consideration the said Scheme, makes no difference. At
any rate the question covered by the 2nd Reference was a
matter’ "connected with or relevant’ to dispute No. 3 of the
1st Reference and hence the State was well within its
jurisdiction under section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial
Disputes Act in passing the order dated January 18, 1964.
The High Court has referred to various decisions regarding
the powers of the Government, when making a reference,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
which, in our opinion, it is not necessary to consider, in
the view that we take regarding the nature of the reference
dated January 18, 1964.
112
In the result, the judgment and order of the High Court are
set aside. The Tribunal will proceed to adjudicate on the
question pending before it regarding the revision of the
existing production bonus scheme. As the original reference
itself is of the year 1962, the Tribunal will give a very
expeditious disposal to this matter. The appeal is
accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
G. C. Appeal allowed.
113