Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 392 1997
PETITIONER:
MANAGEMENT OF ADDISONS PAINTS AND CHEMICALS LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
WORKMEN, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (A.P. & C.) ASSISTANTS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2000
BENCH:
S.R.Babu, S.N.Hegde
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 6th March,
1996. The parties will be referred to in the capacity in
Civil Appeal No. 410 of 1997. Briefly stated the facts are
as follows: The Appellant is the Union who is representing
the cause of a workman by name Nagarajan. The said
Nagarajan was appointed as a Trainee Chemist in the
Respondent Company on 25th May, 1962. On 15th February,
1973 Nagarajan and others were appointed as Junior
Management Assistants on a consolidated pay. They were then
put on a service contract for 5 years. On 17th January,
1977 Nagarajan was transferred as Technical Representative
to Chennai. In 1986 the Junior Management Assistants raised
a dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. By
an Award dated 29th December, 1986 it was held that the
Junior Management Assistants were workmen under the
Industrial Disputes Act. It was, however, held that the
Sales Representative would not be a workman. On 25th July,
1988 Nagarajan was transferred as a Sales Representative.
The said Nagarajan refused to accept the transfer and raised
an industrial dispute challenging his transfer to a
non-workman category. This dispute was referred to the
Industrial Tribunal on 22nd December, 1989. The Tribunal
rejected this demand on 7th February, 1992. The Writ
Petition which was filed was dismissed on 23rd April, 1994.
A Appeal was filed against the dismissal of the Writ
Petition. In that Appeal, on 16th February, 1996, the
Management gave an undertaking that Nagarajan would be
treated as a technical staff and given benefits as a
workman. We are informed that pursuant to this undertaking
Nagarajan has joined duty. The Appeal came to be dismissed
by the impugned Judgment dated 6th March, 1996. However,
the Appellate Court directed the Respondent Company to pay
25% back wages, provided Nagarajan immediately join the
duty. Against this Judgment the Union has filed Civil
Appeal No. 410 of 1997 and the Respondent Company has filed
Civil Appeal No. 392 of 1997. We have heard the parties,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
read the impugned Judgment as well as the Judgment of the
Single Judge and the Award of the Tribunal. In our view,
there is no infirmity either in the Award or in the Judgment
of the Single Judge or in the Judgment of the Division
Bench. The employee Nagarajan had refused to accept the
transfer order and refused to report for duty after his
transfer. We see no substance in the contention that he was
entitled not to join. In our view the dispute could have
been raised and agitated even after joining. There was no
justification for not reporting for duty. In spite of
Nagarajan not having worked he has been awarded 25% of back
wages. This was within the discretion of the Court and we
see no reason to interfere. At the request of the
Appellants in C.A. No. 392 of 1997, they are granted time
of eight weeks from today to pay 25% of the back wages.
Accordingly, both the Appeals stand dismissed. There will
be no Order as to costs.