1975 (8) TMI 139 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claims for overtime wages by Syphon Pumpers and Mains workers.
2. Claims for wages for weekly off days by workers from various departments.
3. Applicability of the Industrial Tribunal award and the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act.
4. Res judicata and its applicability to the claims for overtime wages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claims for Overtime Wages by Syphon Pumpers and Mains Workers:
The respondents, who were Syphon Pumpers and Mains workers, filed multiple applications before the Additional Authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, claiming overtime wages for specific periods. The company contended that these claims were barred by an award of the Industrial Tribunal in Ref. No. 54 of 1949. The Authority held that the claims of Booster Attendants for overtime work were covered by the award, while the claims of other applicants were not. The Court of Small Causes dismissed the workmen's appeals and allowed the company's appeal, holding that the claims were barred by the award. The High Court, however, held that the claims were not barred and remanded the applications for ascertaining and decreeing the amount.

2. Claims for Wages for Weekly Off Days by Workers from Various Departments:
Respondents 81 to 118, who joined the company after 1948, filed applications claiming wages for weekly off days. The Third Additional Authority allowed these applications, holding that the award was no bar and that the provisions of the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act were applicable. The Court of Small Causes, however, dismissed the applications, stating that the claims were barred by the award. The High Court restored the judgment of the Third Additional Authority, stating that the claims were not barred by the award.

3. Applicability of the Industrial Tribunal Award and the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act:
The Industrial Tribunal's award in Ref. No. 54 of 1949 dealt with demands for paid weekly off and overtime wages. The Tribunal granted the demand for a paid weekly off for workers who worked all seven days of the week until 1948. The Tribunal clarified that the award applied to all workers, including those who joined after 1948. The High Court's impression that the workers were entitled to be paid for the days off under the award or Section 18(3) of the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act was incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the award did not entitle the post-1948 workers to be paid separately for the weekly day off.

4. Res Judicata and Its Applicability to the Claims for Overtime Wages:
The demand for overtime wages was rejected by the Tribunal in general terms, with specific categories like booster attendants being dealt with separately. The Supreme Court held that the question of overtime wages under the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act should be deemed to have been dealt with and rejected by the Tribunal. The doctrine of res judicata applied, as the workers neither raised the contention that they were entitled to the benefit of the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act nor that they should be paid overtime wages under its provisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of res judicata is based on public policy considerations to avoid unnecessary litigation and ensure finality of decisions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the petitions of all the workers were dismissed. The court reiterated that the award of the Industrial Tribunal was binding on all workers, including those who joined after 1948, and that the claims for overtime wages and weekly off days were barred by the award. The doctrine of res judicata applied to the claims for overtime wages, as the issue had been dealt with by the Tribunal. The Appellant was ordered to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the Respondents.