9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the wage structure, including dearness allowance, of a Government undertaking in the public sector should be different from that of an undertaking in the private sector. 2. The linking of dearness allowance with the cost of living index for Poona. 3. The introduction of a gratuity scheme for the workmen. 4. The retrospective operation of the award. 5. The status of a foreman as a 'workman'. 6. The wage rates for daily-rate workers. 7. The age of retirement for the employees. 8. The provision of amenities and their impact on wage fixation. 9. The allowance for workmen in the 'closed area'. Detailed Analysis: 1. Wage Structure in Public vs. Private Sector: The Court examined whether the wage structure of a Government undertaking should differ from that of a private sector. The Company argued for a different pattern due to its public sector status, citing factors like nexus with the Central Government, parity among public sector industries, and greater security for employees. The workmen countered that the employer's identity is irrelevant and the needs of the employee are paramount. The Court held that the principles of wage fixation applied to private sector industries should also govern public sector undertakings with distinct corporate existence. The Court emphasized socio-economic justification for uniform wage principles to ensure industrial peace and productivity. 2. Dearness Allowance and Cost of Living Index: The Tribunal linked dearness allowance with the cost of living index for Poona, modifying it to reflect variations in the index. The Company argued that this resulted in dearness allowance on dearness allowance and double provision for house rent. The Court clarified that the Tribunal aimed to neutralize price rises without double counting and that the house rent component in the index did not inflate it unduly. 3. Gratuity Scheme: The Tribunal introduced a gratuity scheme, considering the stability and profitability of the Company. The Company contended that its higher provident fund contributions should negate the need for gratuity. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that provident fund contributions alone might not suffice for employees' post-retirement needs. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's scheme, which balanced gratuity and provident fund benefits. 4. Retrospective Operation of the Award: The Tribunal gave the award retrospective effect from January 1, 1962, considering the delay in the dispute's resolution and the low emoluments of lower-category employees. The Court found no reason to interfere with this discretion, acknowledging the Tribunal's rationale. 5. Status of Foreman: The Tribunal determined that a foreman was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, as his duties were predominantly managerial and administrative. The Court accepted this factual finding. 6. Wage Rates for Daily-Rate Workers: The Tribunal increased the wage rates for daily-rate workers based on comparisons with neighboring concerns. The Court found no error in this determination, accepting the Tribunal's assessment of relevant circumstances. 7. Age of Retirement: The Tribunal raised the retirement age from 55 to 58 years, with discretion for further extensions. The Court, following judicial trends, extended the retirement age to 60 years, eliminating the employer's discretion to avoid potential manipulation. 8. Provision of Amenities: The Company argued that its extensive amenities should influence wage fixation. The Tribunal considered permissible fringe benefits in its determination. The Court upheld this approach, noting that only benefits reducing workers' expenses should impact wage calculations. 9. Allowance for Workmen in 'Closed Area': The Tribunal awarded an allowance for workmen in the 'closed area' due to the physical strain involved. The Court found this reasonable and did not alter the Tribunal's decision. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the Company's appeal and largely upheld the Tribunal's award, with a modification to the retirement age, ensuring it aligned with judicial trends and social changes. The workmen's cross-appeal was also dismissed, except for the modification in the retirement age.
|
