9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospectivity of revised wage scales. 2. Flat increase to each employee. 3. Dearness allowance linked to the cost of living index. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Retrospectivity of Revised Wage Scales: The appellant, Tata Consultancy Engineers, challenged the Industrial Tribunal's decision to make the revised wage scales retrospective to January 1, 1976. The Tribunal had observed that despite increasing profits, the appellant had not adjusted the employees' wages to reflect the rising cost of living. The Tribunal justified the retrospectivity by noting that the wage scales had not been significantly revised since 1973, and the dearness allowance and house rent allowance introduced in 1977 were insufficient to neutralize the increased cost of living. Consequently, the Tribunal found it fair to make the revised wage scales effective from January 1, 1976, and this contention was upheld by the Supreme Court. 2. Flat Increase to Each Employee: The appellant also contested the Tribunal's order dated December 22, 1978, which amended the original award to include a flat increase of Rs. 150 for Draughtsmen and Rs. 100 for other categories of employees. The Tribunal had initially stated a flat increase in the wage scales but did not explicitly mention it as an increase to each individual employee. The Union filed an application under Rule 31 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, to correct this omission. The Tribunal accepted the application and clarified that the flat increase was intended for each employee, which the appellant argued was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in the majority opinion, held that this correction was within the Tribunal's authority as it was a clerical error. However, a dissenting opinion argued that the correction amounted to a fresh award and was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. 3. Dearness Allowance Linked to Cost of Living Index: The workmen filed an appeal challenging the Tribunal's rejection of their demand for dearness allowance to be pegged to the cost of living index. The Tribunal had maintained the existing scheme of dearness allowance at 10% of the basic wage, subject to a minimum of Rs. 50, and house rent allowance at 30% of the basic salary. The Tribunal reasoned that linking dearness allowance to the cost of living index would impose an unsustainable financial burden on the appellant. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that while linking dearness allowance to the cost of living index is generally preferred, it is not a universal rule, and the Tribunal's decision was based on a balanced assessment of the appellant's financial capacity. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals. The majority upheld the Tribunal's correction of the flat increase as a clerical error and maintained the retrospectivity of the revised wage scales. The dissenting opinion disagreed on the correction of the flat increase but agreed on other points. The Tribunal's decision on dearness allowance was also upheld, affirming that it was within the Tribunal's discretion to adopt a different method based on the appellant's financial capacity. Order: Both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
