9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scales of pay 2. Dearness allowance 3. Adjustments 4. Leave Rules 5. Gratuity 6. Retrospective effect of the award 7. Working hours 8. Night shift allowance 9. Retirement age 10. Procedure for taking disciplinary action Detailed Analysis: 1. Scales of Pay: The Tribunal introduced new wage scales for various categories of workmen, amalgamating some categories and raising both starting salaries and maximum limits. The employer contended there was no need for any revision, while the workmen argued the changes were insufficient. The Court emphasized the complexity of wage fixation, balancing social justice and economic necessities, and concluded that the Tribunal had applied appropriate principles. The Court found no justification to modify the award in favor of either the employer or the workmen, noting that the wage scale had remained unaltered for nearly 12 years and the company's financial stability supported the revised scale. 2. Dearness Allowance: The Tribunal awarded a flat rate of Rs. 25/- for dearness allowance, which the employer argued was a calculation error. The Court clarified that the Tribunal considered the lowest paid workers who remained on their old scale and concluded that Rs. 25/- was appropriate. The Court modified the dearness allowance to include a sliding scale, adjusting by Rs. 1/- for every ten points in the cost of living index from a base of 400, effective from April 1, 1959. 3. Adjustments: The Tribunal directed adjustments of existing employees into the new scale with retrospective effect from January 23, 1958, following the precedent set in the Caltex India Ltd. case. The employer objected to the provision of special increments for every three years of service. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the cautious increase in wage scales justified the adjustment relief for existing employees. 4. Leave Rules: The Tribunal's award included 15 days of sick leave with full pay and allowances, with accumulation up to six months, and relaxed rules for casual leave. The employer argued that the Employees' State Insurance Act provided sufficient benefits, and the Tribunal's directions conflicted with the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, which limits sick or casual leave to 12 days without accumulation. The Court modified the award to align with the Act, setting 12 days of sick or casual leave without accumulation for all employees, and found the existing casual leave rules reasonable, setting aside the Tribunal's additional directions. 5. Gratuity: The employer argued that the gratuity scheme imposed undue strain on financial resources. The Court upheld the Tribunal's scheme, noting the company's financial stability and future prospects. The Court did not modify the provision that employees dismissed for misconduct would not receive gratuity, as the workmen had not appealed this aspect. 6. Retrospective Effect of the Award: The Tribunal made the award effective from January 23, 1958, rejecting the workmen's claim for retrospective effect from April 1, 1956. The employer argued for the award to take effect from the date of pronouncement. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's discretion, noting that such decisions depend on the circumstances of each case. 7. Working Hours, Night Shift Allowance, and Procedure for Taking Disciplinary Action: The workmen initially contested these issues but did not press their claims during the hearing. Therefore, the Court did not address these matters in detail. 8. Retirement Age: The Tribunal assumed an existing retirement age of 55, directing continuation up to 60 years if fit. The workmen argued that no retirement age was fixed for most employees. The Court, considering present-day circumstances and the company's position, fixed the retirement age at 58 years, with the option for the company to continue employment beyond this age. Conclusion: The Court allowed both appeals in part, modifying the Tribunal's award concerning dearness allowance, leave rules, and retirement age, and directed adjustments of interim relief. All other aspects of the award were confirmed. The modifications regarding dearness allowance would take effect from April 1, 1959, and those regarding leave rules and retirement age from the date of the judgment. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
|
