9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the National Tribunal regarding Class II employees. 2. Implementation of the need-based minimum wage formula. 3. Coefficient for determining middle-class wages. 4. Seniority and promotion policies. 5. Gratuity provisions. 6. Pension schemes. 7. Confirmation of temporary employees. 8. Fitment of graduates in new pay scales. 9. Participation of unions in individual disputes. 10. Effective date of the award. Detailed Analysis 1. Jurisdiction of the National Tribunal regarding Class II employees The National Tribunal held that it could not adjudicate on the pay scales for Class II employees, who were employed in a supervisory capacity and whose wages exceeded Rs. 500 per month, as they did not fall under the definition of "workman" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal reasoned that fixing a time scale for Class II employees would be beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Tribunal erred in not considering the claims of Class II employees who were drawing less than Rs. 500 per month. The Court emphasized that supervisory staff drawing less than Rs. 500 per month could claim wages exceeding Rs. 500 at some future stage in their service. 2. Implementation of the need-based minimum wage formula The National Tribunal rejected the demand for implementing the need-based minimum wage formula as recommended by the Fifteenth Indian Labour Conference, stating that it was an ideal to be achieved gradually and not instantly. The Tribunal pointed out that the resolution was recommendatory and not binding. The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of the need-based minimum wage but agreed with the Tribunal that immediate implementation was impractical due to economic constraints. 3. Coefficient for determining middle-class wages The Tribunal maintained the coefficient at 80% for determining middle-class wages relative to working-class wages, based on historical data and previous tribunal decisions. The Supreme Court found no reason to alter this coefficient, noting that any changes should be based on fresh and comprehensive inquiries. 4. Seniority and promotion policies The Tribunal observed that seniority and promotion within the Reserve Bank were matters of internal management and discretion. It suggested that a common seniority list could be beneficial but did not mandate any changes. The Supreme Court agreed with this approach, emphasizing that both seniority and merit should play a role in promotions. 5. Gratuity provisions The Tribunal upheld the Reserve Bank's rule allowing full forfeiture of gratuity on dismissal for misconduct. However, the Supreme Court noted recent decisions indicating that gratuity should not be forfeited except to recoup losses caused by the employee's misconduct. The Reserve Bank agreed to align its rules with these decisions. 6. Pension schemes The Tribunal rejected the demand for introducing a pension scheme, concluding that the existing benefits of provident fund and gratuity were sufficient. The Supreme Court declined to re-examine this decision, treating it as a matter of internal policy. 7. Confirmation of temporary employees The Tribunal found no basis for mandating specific rules for the confirmation of temporary employees, considering it a matter of internal management. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that no principle of general application was involved. 8. Fitment of graduates in new pay scales The Tribunal's decision on fitment of graduates in new pay scales was inconsistent with its earlier award in Reference No. 1. The Reserve Bank agreed to treat the special pay received by graduates as an advance increment in the new scales, resolving this issue. 9. Participation of unions in individual disputes The Tribunal rejected the demand for union participation in individual disputes, reasoning that it would hinder internal administration. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, agreeing that such participation was impractical. 10. Effective date of the award The Tribunal set the effective date of the award as January 1, 1962, rather than the date of the reference or an earlier date. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this discretionary decision, noting that both parties contributed to the delay in the proceedings. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the National Tribunal's award with minor modifications agreed upon by the Reserve Bank. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and the practical constraints in implementing ideal wage structures immediately. No order as to costs was made.
|
