M/A Madura Coats Ltd vs Madura Coats Employee'S Union on 6 February, 2010

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/A Madura Coats Ltd vs Madura Coats Employee'S Union on 6 February, 2010

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 67*" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE) VOOPAEA O;OvV«:)Af:    _

AND

THE HONELE MRS. JUSTICE  'V: E 1:'

WRIT APPEAL NO.;i9.7/2O~Of'7"(L-RE'fS}V':  A

E112T_WmE__E.1S_=

Mm MADURA COATS LE1)' A .  A 
NO.H-85,013) MADRASVP\OA:>_ '_ AV 
PB. NO. 1600;. i'i3.QORVTA1\§I .}\é'AGAR_"-- .. 

BANGAI_.ORE§+V56O 1"-jQ1S_ 
REPREESE«m'E1i;3VP336 .. '

MANAGER «.[.PE:RSOjA1NE1;-AM) SALES ADMN)
MR.RAJA£"J4_'i'A'§-{OMAS ~ A 

.. . APPELLANI'

 »A[If3y--» S1:P:E S.%1~--¢fM1jRTHY ASSOCIATES, ADV.)

MAf)UPgAC{3A'1'S EMPLOYEES UNION

 .__[CI,m)V E
A  .E_Nf?-.26. KRISHNAPPA GARDENS. OPP:G'I'RE
  ':x:Ew"A_*r1PPASANI)RA POST
  'EAN'GALORE--560075
  _ REPRESEN'rE1;> Y/3Y GENERAL SECR;EZ'I'ARY

 RESPC)NI.)E2N'1'

(By Sri: '3" S f--\NAN'I'HARAM. ADV. FOR C/R]

<13

F
xx',
.x_



 

3'0

WR.IT APPEAL FII,I:Zl.) U/S 4 OF THE 
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIBE_WTHEZ

ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT 
N025430/2005 C/W w.P.No.1093/2006 AATEJATEFD 
29/01/2007 IN so FAR AS 1'1' PE2E{'i}§\i--NS._ TC) 

{DISMISSAL OF VVRIT PETITION.»  

This appeal having been  
orders on this day, the NACgARA"T_I_~I1'i1A J,»"'p;0ifi0L1_i;1ced_°.

the followingw L» b .

This writ appeal' is the common

order dated  learned single

Judggiii+1'ei'i,~.r;;:»,,%\ié}§é;,;25:zi310,/20l05'd gm W.P.N0.1093/2006
by iihel'-rriaIia.§;eiiie_1'ii.:'0f"*1Vl,z*s.1\/Iadhura Coats Ltd. The

saidﬁfrit ;ie€i_f.i0ns w'ere':fi1ed assailing the award dated

in 1.13.'1\i'0s.38/2001 and 96/2004. whereas

;$'e.:.ii;.on i\E0s.27202/2002 and 27266/2002

werée ﬁled  Union, inter alia. seeking enhancement

of  at Rs.2,798/- p.m. with effect from 1.11.1999

l'"l"i:33.z._ljliiiodiiying the award in 1.l).l\10.96/2004 dated

  __2l.8.2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the wrii:

pei:ii.i0i'1s filed by the management: as well as workmera.
" £32

9%

,,/'7'

/.



 

Beinf a Hrieved bv the said order of the lear:'ied Sin fle
£3 :',--,.E~,» ,  éa

Judge, the mariagemem. has filed this appeal.  9'

2. F01' the sake c)'fc:0nvenie1'1ee. the p21i"i.i_esjVshé1l? Tbs 

referred to as management  
{work..meri). 9' 9 A 9 9 9 9
3. The writ Appeal  
charter of demands     period
from 1.11.1999 to   period from

1.1 1.2002 Te"  The union made

the (7hai'"te.r:'(;f (ie::1-ai1;id»s--for"resfrL1Cturir1g the wages of
the v:W._)r1:<h1a:1V' ifoifh period from 1.11.1999 to

30.1().2092..a:'1r:1:feyrAthe'~fi;1rther period from 1.1 1.2002 to

 b3r"VcE0--riier1ding.g that the management had

made the financial position of the

maiihagerne-ritkvals sound and that there was disparity in

er1har':Ce'mem: of wages between the workmen on one

V"-"_E*aar1"C1« and the managerial staff on {the other.

4. The industry is mamﬁacturing a variety of
threads and the n1ar1i.2faciiuring Lmii. is situated at
Arr1basamudra.111. 'I'amiEr1ad1.: 21 mmiber of offices are

:23

/" .

M,



 

situated throughout. India. One such office is located in

Bangalore. where the members of the union are engaged

in receipt. st.ora-ge. assortment and desp'a_iei1.Vof."'Vsthe

goods. By a settlement arrived on 7. 1 1. 19997-',:: K V' 

of the workmen was settled atdi-:{vs'.'8'5_D;/_« 

period from 1.12.1994 to 3o.10."1._9s--9. sot;¢;iit=:réai'i;'etr¥."-V.

there has been no enhanceiinieiit in the"'utages though
the company has tiv1ia~neia_«Il$r_--seun?.d"~.a.nd there was a
progress in the profit, but ;r,_e--1ying upon the

annuai repor't'oi:.ithe  i:forv"th.e.:Aperiod from 1999

to  to  made a demand for
enhaneement szhe workman to the tune of

Rs.2_._7_98/ _  the management was not justified

- ~.._,in "n.o't aecte-pting theisame. Since there were two Charter

 the aforesaid periods, two separate

dis-,ri)_1ites~\_Ii}§:*re raised by the union before the tribunal

 and both the union as well as the management. let in

_d-.e'vide'nee. The tribunal found that each Charter of

..._demand requires enhancement: and enhancing the

wages to RS.2,0()0/-- (Rs.'1..O0O/« + Rs.1,000/«

respectiveiy} emd accordingly. passed the award which
" if

fix:



 

was challenged by the management as well as the union

in the writ petitions and connected matters wliieh---_were

however dismissed by the iearned Siiigle Jt.1dgs;§"-f3a:.i'ri.g

aggrieved by the same. the management lias ;3r.eierr'e_d 

this appeal.

5. We have heard the learzied Seriivor'-C'ot1'r1és'e1',V

Sri.S.l\i.i\/Iurthy, for M/s.S.N';'ivl'tirthv associliitéelllfbr the V

appellant and Sri.T'.S.An:1i'1ta1s.;ir;1;'"~._learned  counsel.
appearing for the respondeiit? ijniori; 

6;  of the appellant. that

the award Tribunal as weli as

the orderliniade by'~.Vt'he":lear1'ied Single Judge are not

 e(3:f:reet._ii1'i..c_as rriue-hi'as the workimen submitted their

 premise that the salary of the

eXee'ut4ivjeseA'1._ai3d officers of the company have been

<._inerease(:;' whereas the workmen have not been given

"increase. The claim of the workmen on the said

 V' premise is erroneous on account. of the fact that they

are given dearness allowance. whereas the officers are

not given any such allowaraee. The executives and



K

,>

/'



 

officers are more at Bangalore because the registered
office of the appellant' company is in Bangalore and

when the salary of the executives and oi'fieers'~«.Vare

incomparable with that of the xvorlintei?-j.'  V'

received dearness allowance. the 'c'la-in} staterneératl made

on the premise that the workmen have not been 'giv.e,¥'nw._

any increase in salary is bavsjelepss. H He' also 'submitted V

that no doubt charters' dentaiitis  sevei'al 'items but
the financial capacityl pr ll-tl'i'e' eor1€_'p.a1'iy has to be

considered, _as«.c_also work of these

workrrienVl'1'n.. industrieslllhas to be compared but
.no such t'indi;eg'h':as:"o.een4 ..given in the award. He has

alsovtakenhusv'th15oughV"certain portions of the evidence

'"~.._t0Apthatllltheltribunal has not appreciated the

 proper perspective. that the workmen

have a.iso3j..-- been reduced to the company's since

V"'»oupt,sour__c'ing have been resorted to by the company. The

and substance of the argument. of the learned

  V. ...S;enior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is

that the approach of the tribunal is not correct and

that the learned Single Judge was not right in

€

1,',



 

dismissing the eompa.ny's writ petition. in support of

his submissions. he has relied on certain C1('3('.iS]'G'f1Si."'«._ 

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent: }~"~u1'iion _ b

has submitted that the cthairter  

workmen are justified in  _much--Aas the.rii;;i.Iiagen31e'rii; 

has taken care of t.he of'fi(:ersv"iaTnd the iKrc>r'krrien:'}whereas
the workmen have    there is
no other company   with the
appeilantfs that of workmen
and staff iiih'  on account of
\rolu11ifery__  or otherwise has to be
seen in tii.e:"t:onte>&<rt':'.o'i' in contract labourers

ernpigoyed by tiiitevtiomfiany which fact has been admitted

,by_ the .n'ia'n'a:geme1at: in its evidence. In fact, the

"Ii"~l'-5t'i.'--1_zvi;tgéVI'i"}V"_€'_nt.'giiﬁs declined to produce the salaries of

-- managers and executives although IA No.11 was filed, on

ig1:1*ze«ground that the said information is confidential.

--  According to the learned counsel, adverse inference has

 to be drawn on account. of withholding evidence before

the tribunal. As far as the outxsourcing of the workmen

that is being done by the eornpany is concerned. leariied

ﬁg"/'?:

L9,»;



 

Counsel for the union submits that the carrying and
forwarding agencies (C81? agencies) are under the

Control of the n'1anagen1ent:. As far as the fin'a_1*i'C.ia1

capacity of the company is concerned. ref_e;°re'n«efe---.._has'_

been made by the Tribunal to the bala;1=1<ie.ji:sheet«and 

actual reports for various periods and?-it."--is 

the said figures are not diSp1__1.t€dV"by" the  lie 

has also submitted that a    ciiore has
been set apart for set.~tl.e'nie'nt ;and"V--t}th.atl the company is

making proﬁts and issuing good_ divideinds. Therefore.

when were s.i.si,fi11af:i'(éial~.oapaeity"to increase the salary of
the manage.i'i_al'fsttékfi','itpisl subrnitted that the same
principle has t.o"he""a(1op'ted in the case of workmen also.

'i'hat*~t_he t.r.ibL'1'nal V' has awarded an increase of

 RsV_»'i~',:OQ_Q,/j only"pe_ifjrnonth per workman and even this

.[)'c'11,lCI"}/'_.»E':l,iK1fl'=.VW'}'1iCll has been awarded has been

ti-.ol;.allVen{_'{e.d"  the company despite the financial

position'  Company has been improving. This only

*-shows_ré..luet.anee on the part. of the management to

share profits of the company to its WOI'kI}.'if3I1 to revise

" the wages and other service conditions to the \7VOI'k1"gflaI}.

5;:



 

'.3

It is finally submitted that the learned Single _J udge

accepied the coiuention of the i'€Sp()I1Cl€l'll. L11'~ii"ur1f"--«;ii'1d

dismissed the writ petitiori ﬁled by the inéi'1"i:;igénié3;1ii'',t "

which order does not call for any'»-int4jjferC'i'iCr% ii1v--.if.l1il':-3.'

appeal in exercise of its Ap}3é:lJ.faf'e_ "JL.1i"i's::lictia,)n"

power.

8. In reply, the  appearing
for the company  has
stated the1t4_Véi  for a sum of
RS180    consiclt,-red to be
1.:r;"()i'its'._L t;l1__a'.i_A cmres. has ljiecn provided
for S€lT.tl€:'£I}T€l1t!  that the _J'udé§1'r1en'{s

crit'e<;l;j'by..t:he (';a;;iiise1'i"0r the respoiidents vis--':1«vis the

 Ab-f._Vlaw stated therein cannot be disputed. He

 the minimum increase has to be done

and."ii.0i;'----i1. Siini ofRs. 1.000/W per moiith per workman.

 Having heard counsel cm both sides and on

 pt-jnisal of ihe matxerial on record. the only point that

" would arise for our c01'1sider21i:ioi"i  {£4



 

10

I 'whether the order passed by the learned Single

Judge dismissing the turf! p€liliOI'1fiI€d by the tjoznpdrty

aﬂ'irrni.ng the Award of the Industriai Tribtmlstl  '

any interference in this appeal?'   -

10. Before answering the said-poeiiit. itai-S .neeeS73sary 

for us to set out in brief  "er the
workman. The claartenof  

{1} Revision of Wages.   

[a] 1r1erease¢.ot'e   on the basis of

basic sz":i'1e1rjx;°.=_ '

{b]Wei'ght.a'ge  years of service of a
workmen,  added as his or her basic
wage a's.__se:'viCe W.ei'gh1;;age.

[C]  1<esu1t.V"of_.[a] and (b) above on reaching the top of
the grade wor1<1"3"1"en to be given fitment. into the next

» 1 " £i..IfadVe:«, »

"[Cl]V"R_eviSio_n__ of"exist.ing rates of annual inerernem. for

' possessiorli and s3ub--st.aff.

'<._{2] Deavrmess Allowance, {3} House Rent Aliowamte, (4)

it.f»Cit,y«,Corr1per1sat,ory Allowance, (5) Children Eidueation

 P:»iIov€ance, (6) Lunch Allowance, (7) Conveyance

 to ...Aiiowanee. (8) Leave Travel Aliowanoe, (9) Long Service

award, [10] Employment to the dependents, (1 1] Health
lrisuranee Scheme, (12) 1. Loans and advances. 11.
Allowanrtes, [:1] Cash handling allowaxlrtos, éb] Foot Wear

,-"E
5% »



 

Li.

Allowance. [C] Washing allowance. (d) Car cleaning
allowance. [e] Sweater allowance. (i) Lunch allowance.

Out:-si:at.ion travel allowance. lg) Oui;~statio1'1 travel

allowance. l3.Retiren1ent. benefits. 14. Family Relief

Fund. 15.Aboi_iiiion of contract system, l6.Complern'en":.A4

of workmen, 17, Existing benefits and privi1egcs.""' 'V' 

The Industrial Tribunal h3.S.:E1'Ix§3\'V€1'T'€dLlQ1'il?7 ab_ove", V

claims as follows:

'The workers claim as  charteqr of 
are granted in part as follows by..i'_henlndust_rial Trjibunal:

Claim No.l[a) -- Inereaseirifihetbéisiosalarylllaivv 10% is
only awarded.  - *  7  

(b) Re}e'c'ted" a. f}; % V

(c) As llb] is reictrtfed,'*i._E.iJh,e' basic salary reaches the top
of the grade in the'°tiu1é'=--.scée1le by virtue of increase the
workmen has to  put. in' the next. time scale.

-'"~._[d} __re\f,iSion""of.._.a.nnual increment is as follows (for

" « .A"ss:is'tan_is)l_; --

     50

Rs.  l .-i:o_  Rs.65

 ~  -Rs. 156 3.___Ai%o 1755 Rs.75

  V"l:l_{s.Ql"'?f_56 to 2400 R885

  113.2401 8: above R590

 For sL1b--st/ail":-

RS370 to 430 Rs.25

RS431 10565 Rs-3.30

xi



 

Rs.566 to 710 Rs-3.35

Rs.7'll to 920 Rs.40

Rs.921 <3: above Rs.55

Ciaim No.2: Rejected

Ciaim No.3: Enhanced from 5% to 10%

Claim No.4: Rejected    T I T

Claim No.5: Rs. 100/~ pm. is,o_nly    ~. «. C' C'

Claim No.6: Existing a110wanCe,.V:Vnf Rs..2zi-Q' 
to Rs.300/-   C  i

Claim No.7: C<)nveya.i1'eé_efaii'CQ\van.C'e_'raised to Rs.225/W
from Rs.18O/W. I A   .  

Claim No.8: E;;i..-ériiag   v'tQ,f§s.3500/~ p.a.

Claiml\J0l;9:--.13§E:(§eei:e:i--  C
Claim  l0:  C

Claim No.uli,:_VCC ?..ejec_te'd_ " 

  E2:  'iailirzzised from Rs.500 to Rs. 1,000/~

  advance raised from  3000/~ to

(c)'\feChicV1e'lela'r1 raised from Rs. i5,000/- to Rs.25.000/--.

'r_,(d) Rejeeted .

VA 'C_'CCla;iin No.12~II. (a) Rejected

*  (bl Fer wearhouseman/woman, the FWA is raised from

   .,Rs.l50/W to RS200/~.

For Drivers/subwstaff, the FWA is raised from
Rs.400/-- to RS450/~.



 

43

{c} Washing allowarice for warehouse man woman 81
drivers 8: substaff is raised form R890/~ to R3100/-.

(cl) Car cleaning allowance is raised from 
Rs.iOO/-- p.m. 7  "

{e} Sweater allowance is raised from  C'

Rs/100/«H p.a. 
{1} Rejected.
Claim No.13: 1 »~ Rejected
2 - Rejected

Claim No.14: Existing  is'V"ra'lsect to
IRs.25,000/-   2   

Claim No.15: Rejected   C

Claim i\To.16:"     

Claim N517; .l;,ejeCcf%;ed

It isrriade clear,th.at'~t,he. benefits already granted by
way of ir1t_eri.rr1 1'eli"ef shalllbe deducted while granting
arrears to the wori:__mea}'~.-"Further, the management may
pay  ,a.rrears in two equal quarterly installments,

 \;j.zhic.h it shat'.-~pay the same with interest at the
 rate of  .4 

_   Sarnpath Kumar and Francis are
not eritit.led'i_t'0' any beneﬁts of this award as they have
settled the -dispute out of the court."

it   1. After the charter of demands were placed on

   company. the matter was taken up for negotiat.ior1

land conciliation to settle the dispute between the

parties. l~I(mrever. on failtire of conciliation
Q

sn-



 

94

proceedings. the State Government, by its order dated

23.04.2001 has made a reference to the ixidtistrial

Tribunal for adjudication of the points of 

pass an award read thus:

i) VVhether the   

Employees Unioir(C1T"{J)t"*  Union;

Office No.26, Kristmappa   {in V

front of). New Thip-pa--s'anfd-r_a Post'."--Bavnga1orew
75 was justified in  demands as
per aAnnexure..from'  of M/ S.
Metdiitjlfa  old Madras
   
11:}  "
 if er1Vt,it1e'di"to?v«..if" _ V.
12. After» the I"é'fA€'1"€VI;'1"CV€'\NaS registered. notice of the

:vA¥.Vt:o--.:fwE_"v1at_ relief the workmen are

samegfwas sent' tofhoth the parties. In fact, an interim

 relief was gi"ven by the State Government by its order

 as per the provisions of Section» 10 (B)

V . (1) ta)   Industrial Disputes Act and thereby

if"4i"V.--.orde.redvV"payment of Rs.500/-- per month, which was

--  ehialieriged before this Court: in WiP.No.20210/2001 and

the same was rejected against. which. Writ Appeal

L

ax',



 

i5

No.4280/2001 was filed and the same was rejected.

During the pendeney of the writ appeal. the set.tle.rtier1t

was entered into in respect of the interim 1j€...l_i_et'Vu'\r.*.itl1"'« K

regard to arrears due and also future payment,  in

13. in support. of the céharter---of it

eiaim statemerlt was filed byjgthe eovneerned¥uloei'l;i.rriVe1_i 
dispute ID No.38/2001 before_v:vt;hr;~:indtlstriaiiiwyihuital at
Bangalore stating it   several wage
settlements in the  settlement.

dated 7. 1 1_  Q €e?tpir.eCl  L-3:1" 31. 1 . 1999 and

therefore o1A11ai*1,_€rl__ d.Lei'n_ai1d_s was submitted t.o the
Company' on  requested it for initiation

of negoti.atio1]s__forl the purpose of arriving at mutual

settllement in' the interest of maintaining industrial

lf,eei'e_e.A "'lt'_~was_'-contended in the claims statement that

_ the l"'t~on--1'pa';'i"y is engaged in manufaewre and sale of

.e,.ytex.ti.iesland textile related products having 9750

.l e;np1'oyees, throughout the country and that at

it "Bangalore it engaged services of 85 permanent workers.

who had formed themselves into union recognised by

the maitagement. That inspite of neg()tiat.i<ms. on the

it

/i .

my



 

1t')

charter of demands the management was offering
voluntary retirement to the employees and at the same
time welcomed contract labourers/C&F agencies

through offering jobs under C&F agency to t.hoselc»~w'i2_o

opt voluntary retirement. from the Company,  _

was reduction in the manpower asfar as .f'5a1"igalore wast. 

concerned from 247 employees in-,1  

in the year 1999 and onlylfl_'_?'8._ employees
2001. While at the same time,.._the_ streng"th.of direct

labourers had inereasedfat  58 at Central

Warehouse at  the managerial cadre
throughout the  far as the company is

concernedlw-as' 1.5?/o  40% of the total salary was

 by llt'h'e~"lcompany to them and that

 c_tirie_oin.{3'ara»?5le and hefty increase in salary was given to

 staff. The enormous difference in the

 V'-»salarie's between executives or managerial staff and the

""'wo1fk._:r;1en showed utter discrimination against the

  9 workers. The contention that the management. is having

lﬁnanoial problems is not correct as the board of

management itself stated that it had completed in the

;/X



 

'E7

year 2000 the sale of Madhura Garments Division for

consideration of Rs.189.23 crores and there was--.._no

further capital investrnent and the said sL1rns.'w"ere--§t1§)'t'A.

available. According to the claims st.ate7me.51tv,.V0'the.,:

management. could easily increase tlie  «.of"'i':l'1e 

workmen at the range of Rs.1.500_/lﬂto 

each worker per month  
without any difficulty,  0

14. In response   counter
statement,     stating that
textile  crisis for the last
ten years and  number of textile mills in

public' and pr1vat.eVsecto1* in India are closed on account

of  efiorrnotis loss. that it is not in a position to meet

the'-l'_'d.eri1a'ndsV.l:'of the union. on account. of the loss

sL1ffe.--red--.f'byv  company dL1e to extremely poor market

_ucor:ditio'ns. It denied the allegations regarding

_  r'edL1et,ion of work force under the voluntary retirement

0' "scheme and the increase in the contract workers and

eni:.rust,rnent to C&F agencies. that the reduction in

workmen in Bangalcne was only ma1'g*inal. it was also





 

not correct: that 40% of the total disbursemems were
given to maiiagers and officers since the managers were
only 600 in riornber and the st.re1'i;_§t1i of the workmen

was over 9,000. While denying several a1]legations..V1na;ci.e

in the claims statement, the management _.e:of3i'i:e_iji---deciv___

that there was no merit in the charter of ~:i"£:*'ni.<1:i_id's'».0'r_ir2__ 

the Claims statement: and asked for its 

15. in support of  C;E1sei"*the': \2tfor1:x11(:ri
examined WW.1  marked the

dO(',t.1111Cl1tS E2x.W.1  'id'Oi'§--.iV'V--iﬁe11;1i1' of the

rnai'1age.ment.,.Wi'1i1'ee:ga'mii"1-irig two witonesses as MW.1 ('SE

MW2. gotv"n1ai*ked.tihe 'ddCtiments  "E to Ex.M.7.

 It  be noted that, the respondent herein

 1"iied_arﬁvapplieatioii for directing the appeilariim

ni.ai':agernen_t'~:;'to produce the names of directors.

-- mariéétgeirs and executives ete, working in Bangaiore and

";~t.heiir_saliétry particulars before the 'i'1*ibu:'1:»:1i. Though

 the said application was ai1()vved. no doeumeiits were

 piroclueed by the mzi£izige11'1ent. in the dispute before the

?

Tribtiiiaal. 



 

'i9

17'. In support: of their case. the President of the

Union examined himsetf as WW1. by stating tlfiat.__"t;he

company is in the manufact,ure of threads 21r);ti"i«e2d;ile's_. 

There are three divisions namely [1] C_ee1ts_'fInCii:e1«.{iiiit

Madhura Textiles and (iii) Gl()bal:=:l'hrea,d  at

The customers of the eomp»an__y aregali over"'l'the_V_Vwoi;'ld;
that there are about 80 'employee'sﬁworlﬁiing in
Bangalore. they are notz:'inVo1vs;_:dv'. inanufacttiring

activities but  include. j; 'c;fii.ge" égsiﬁstants and
wearhousemrﬁii,  of the company
held nt2rg'otiationsRaiid "settleme'r1'ts"l for all the units. The
last settl.em.ent as exhibit. W1. Copies of the

balance sheets'oifvt-heeornpany for the years l998~200l

  asVeXi'iii:)Vits W2 to W5. Eight wage siips of

 produced as exhibit W6. Copy of the

set.{.14emevn.t'"showing the increments given to the

3"-'«.___V'~»executi'.res is marked as exhibit W13 and the statement

 the wages paid to workmen from October 1999

"to? October 2000 is marked as exhibit W14. As per

9' exhibit W15 which is the balance sheet of the Company

for the year 2000. the wealth of the company and the

ﬁx



 

reserves and surplus are shown and the fact that the
company exports its products is shown by a statement

at exhibit. W16. Exhibit W17 makes a reference to the

company having Rs. 189.23 crores on account of. of

Madhura Garments and that the company  ~

meet the demands put forth by the.~ur1ion," 

no other company comparahiie   

management as the compa;1y4"'~Vis fin'aricia11y.' $*our1d'jon
account of the clifferent, typeset b"u.s'i'ness it"nas.../I

18. In the cross exam_inat--io'n' h_ehfas"'stated that the

basis for preiparir1g:=the._c'harter of demands was the low
wages of the workmer; whpeii compared to the executives

andotlier staff department and the pay scales of

other conjinercial establishments. The activities carried

ot_1t_".__by""t1'i~e__rnembers of the union are clerical jobs,

. wearhouseiviiian jobs and other official functions. The

Vwcaryhouttseman job is to categorise the d.ifferen1:. assorted

 threads received in the wearhouse and dispatch it to

 "Various destinations in India. According to this witness.

over a sum of 113,116.58 crores was realized by sale of

fixed assets and the same was transferred to the

g3



 

[3
Ex}

rnonthly salary of the executives ranges from

Rs.l2.OO0/W to Rs.25,()OO/~ inclusive of all perks,*'"t--hai;

there are 85 persons working' in Bangalore _.i..n_eludiij1g'« 3

managers and executives and the strength of the

workmen is 76. As the General SieCrei.a;ry"«oi"ithe: u.p,1_c':1f;_~ 

WWS deposed that the union has far  four

settlements and generally the of Vone"settlle:rnent is
three years, that th'e,_.'l'ast was 'signed in
November 1997,, and   £999 after

which  made. In the

eonc1lia't'1loI;--Apijyoeeleiaiings if the"'managen1ent, had offered
total inerease' o.i°Rs;«.l 800;-.,,u;1ion would have agreed, but

the 1_nanalgen1"enVt'V._  offer the same. The

 «._rnan__age_rnent is ilner-e«asing the salaries of managers and

,_lexeet:t,i'Ve_s  year without any settlement

ir1"es;V3ectiyet'1--Voi's" profit or loss in the turnover. As per'

*.,exhibit the company is in a sound financial position.

  .20. In his cross examination he has statetl that

 V. ...s:n(:e there are no comparable industries in Bangalore,

no comparison with other industries have been made
while preparing the tiliarter of denmricls. Part of the

/2
W3'?



 

L3
4:».

1
1

be equated with the. work of C&.F agents in other

companies. The least paid worker at Ba1I1galc)re.""g.ets

Rs.6.270/~ per month whereas in C&F aigerits...eozieern" V.

is concerned. for a similar workmen it is  per»

month and the workmen working inthe "E\_/Iills 

Nadu gets Rs.5._650/-- perV_n_1'onth';--A_l"He has  V

details of the profits and lossesﬁlliiadelxbylutlale eompany
and the fact that readymade  business was
sold and that there has_b_e'en  employment

by 50% on ace()u}d1»t.'Vot'Vthe_\)'olu_ntaiy" retirement scheme,

that theleast;lpaidxeieeutivesl§etsVRs.7,500/-- per month
and tdhezleast .get,s Rs.24,300/ e per month

and that d'ezf_na»:1d is atleast 20% less than other

"*e.omvpara'b1e"i--concerns.' According to MW1, an increase

 in  charter of demands would make the

Corr:-.paI1__y~ ~n_1ore I10I1~COI11p€ii'{iV€ as the textile industries

 ""«__vV'itse1f  crisis. Through him ex.hibits M1 to M6 were

 a..llE§Q°L'»!)Tilarked.

22. ln his cross examination, he has sta£'ed that
there are 68 employees working at Bangalore who are

regular employees and there are 20 contratrt workers

V//'



 

that sometimes manag'§ers of the company have worked

in those concerns on short. time basis, that it is _.itot'«...t.t1ie

that. the workmen of those concerns are reeelving'*1"e'slsjer. *

wages than the workmen of the_.e.om4par1j?llaritd;»t.ha.t_}theRu

company is Comparing the wages 'the?Wo.rkme_r1«._.Ai'n..

those companies with thellwages of the .eo.rI1'pan'y'. He l' V

has also admitted that  'i's._.getting...rev:working
jobs done by certalnrt   It. Is
uneconomical .fO;1-..the  work. But
the names.-ofi  mentioned in the
balanee' "stated that. there are 44
managiersll and  located at Bangalore and

t.he strengthvl'o£_'the*V_workmen is 68. He has also

  that inllthtfovounter statement filed on behalf of

  total remuneration of the workmen

inelndes.  overtime and bonus. As far as the increase

Win the." salary of the mangers and executives are

"--T.l'e(Jn_c_eIrned. he has stated that his salary is

 .. .,Rs.3,i4,7892/-- per month and that his salary for the

it year 1999 was Rs.36,93,049/- per annum and

Rs.36,73.227/~ per annum for the year 2000,

>2

...M"



 

Rs.43,01.900/- per annum for 200} and

Rs.47.228.00/e per annum for the year 2002 iricltiding

PF'. OT if any. housing allowances etc.. _S'i'ncfe1_~

salary has been increased annually.  J'anuar_y 

2003 salary was Increased by Rs_,v'75,-000}

Rs.3,00,000/W per month.' The 

Rs.50,000/~ to Rs.75.000/awrfler.u\mor1'th._W'l'he salary
particulars of exec1uti'ee.sf* and are confidential
information and if the.vve--o_u:rt be produced
but the    not confidential
infornégatiolqltisiliiellellillﬁgis   that the figures for
the year   "listed the various facilities

and re~i'rnburs'ernVe--n'ts_'"t§f1aif'. they have. He has denied

that_delibe'rat'elyV[the lriianagement did not keep the

 ma.tf--ersl'for paymentwyof dues in the previous years before

VZtilex"sliareholders and he has stated, various voluntary

ac;-hemes between the years 2000 and 2002

which i_s'*r.egt:lar feature every year and one time

_«  payment.'  made to the employees opting for such
_ls.cheme;*' He has also admitted that in the year 2000.

l'--Ma.d_hura Ga.rrnents Division was sold for a sum of

Q./"

woe'.-



 

{£3,189.23 erores and that M/s. J 8: P Coats Ltd. UK.

had securing approval from the g<)verrJ..m-eiitgil

authorities to acquire 100% equity share  _

company and thereby p1*ivaVt.ised :tll''I : '_eor'np'any_. " '

M/s. J & P Coats Ltd which is afptonie.er~ in 'thr.ea1.i'

business in the world"fh'oldsllia1lV--  

l\/I/sl\/Iadhura Coats  now  'Ltd.
Company and which  with Minerva
Mills, Binny  etef  that it is a
normal    the management.
staff every  lbalanﬂlee sheet shows loss for
some  'admitted that no specific

documentskhave been "produced regarding the financial

 of Relliarree', Gwalior, Rayons and N.T.C.

_Cor;ipar1«i_es..foij purposes of comparison with the

bt;siness.lof-.V_l1fis company, According to MW]. as per the

 settlemeiit. reached with the workmen at Tamil Nadu, an

"--x_A1nerlease of RS260/~ has been made per worker per

 rfionth and that the company is not agreeable to pay

more than the said sum for the Bangalore workmen 

the company is not capable of ine1*easing>; the wages by a

¥

,2": a



 

L:
xi')

miriimurn of Rs.l.0OO/~ per month per worker. The
interim settlement. ciated 13.1.2004 entered b€l.\iifC:€I'1TlrEh(3

parties is marked as exhibit M7.

23. MW2 is the manage:jHoi' the'(io'rripaiiyV'whol 

has stated that in the warehouse 3'ob=.is~ "0711

by the company ernployee}s_.*--.__Apart llfrom'liilthe-vCe§it'.ral 2 L'

Wearhousing there are turo__ll"hrar1ch 'w'earho5uses at
Bangalore where the "C&E%" "agerits""--o'pAe'irate who receive
payment underran ag'r'eei'nentA.iand 'tl.1e7'workers in the

branch wa1"'e'hotjVse.s"are'._:he" €{§&F. agents' workmen.

Actcordiiiig' to.V.:£'1in"L7fi'r1 th.e"Bangalore Central Warehouse.
cost ofﬁeaehl xv()r¥{_ina«n_ill"-employed by the company is

Rs.8,5_O0/§"'pei" month  the cost of each workman of

 ager1tslis'"RsV.2.5OO/-- to Rs.2,750/- per month.

_'1"'heKc14ai:ri'ed out by the C&.F' agency is similar to

theyageiiicyl'work carried on by the Central Warehousing

u"'4._'r-and the' material is despatehecl to the customers.

  Acieordiiig to him, the work done by the C&F agency is

 V. responsible than the work done at the central

wareliouse of the company because C&F age§t.s

/'3



 

36

despateh the materials ciireetiy to the eustorneis and

pay as per the despatch.

24. Though there is no e1aim'"madeT_or1 Vreg:ior1v¥e.t§om't%..

industry basis. it cannot be heiti  

the workmen has to be reje<fte=:1 soleiy 0-_q't_hzi'tV treason. V

What has to be seen»  ea"péa;bAi1i"tf;/ of the
Company and aiso   the nature of
work   eompany can be
compared  in any other
"irViV:teerest of the workmen.
The evixdseheei  the company cannot be

compared h"wit'ii._ar1yv_ other industry. Though the

' V''--v.mar1.ei;g§e:Ame1nt. has 'stated that. Certain companies similar

:5 _t_he  in question exists. no materials have

been p1"odt.:eed in respect of those Companies.

'A hereforei'. there is no material on record of comparable

'j"i,n'd1_.1.s--try which can be taken as the basis for

 .. _,determining the charters of demand.

&



 

?i'%

25. According to WW1, the wages paid to the

workmen are very low, when Compared to the exetrdtives

and manageriai personnel of the company. 

cont.eXt, the management. witnesses hasspo.Vken"~aboL1't; _ 

the low rate of wages of the workmen, "in '7t't'1e 

Tami} Nadu. as compared to "Banged-i;re' 'whichdf

comparison has in fact 11o't.Jbeer1 xacceptedtzi by the
Tribunal, Consideringythe Td1'fferer_1t._VA'(;«:)nditio11 of work
which may be _prevaler1t:'_in  :'?'espe..::;;ve places, in

respect of  n*:{at.eri'éil hVasvvh'eer1"'produced. The
manag§e'rﬁent.':j5Witifiiess"*M'N.2A'haé: stated that the work
done  the  company has partiaﬁy

been_t1'anSterredV't,o7(:&t% agency and that the wages

  A.worvkr11"ei'1'Vby the company is Rs.8,500/- per

  rno_nthV"v.rhe.reas, for the very same work done by the

  agency. the wages paid is Rs.2500 to

W.275O"p_er month and therefore, these figures when

 _At:vo_m'}'::-ared. according to witness, are sufficient to reject

VA   the claim of the workmen. However. the said contention

has been rightly rejected by the Triburaal. The workmen

of the company are. in fact, Eongstazlding regular

g/t



 

27. It has also come in evidence that the
management. is increasing saiaries of the managers and

executives of the company every year irrespective of

profits and losses in the turnover. Although it 

on record that for the years 1998 t:o I)eeen1be'r"2O(l:1'lll ll

proﬁts of the company reduttedv-b't1't'--«in fact. tlherel we1'eg

losses. Even t.hen during the said'«per_iod 

allowances of the executives"-and rnanagerial stalfflwere
increased. It has alsoI"eomet~in"e*.iid_en-rye that"or1"aceour1t
of modernization and irzltroduetliofrrl'of'.,new technology

there islmredeuiced:ffstre'ngth of""regular employees, but

there isl'.11o..e\lz1clen.'c:eVas...ltie._§vhether the reduced strength

of employeesVlarefpelfforming the entire work of those

 ,_,_em'f):lloye-es who ear'l'i'er worked at Bangalore. It has also

  that in the statement filed on behalf of

the.._44Com..;)any.l the total remuneration of the workmen

V'-».inelud'es_tovertime and the bonus which cannot give a

picture of the actual wage structure. It is also

  adnlitted that since 1998. salary of the executives and

managers have increased, though the balance sheet

would show the loss for some years. Though workmens

w

/
_/



 

?4

wage st,rL.1et.u1'e cannot be det.ermined salary on the pay»
scales of the executives and the managers or managerial

staff. yet the fact that their salaries were consisT:~e_nt.ly

increased irrespective of whether company 

losses or enjoyed profit clearly brings?"  it

discrimination v1s~a»vis workmen';

28. It is relevant to no.i:é'*V.tyhat slwas it

filed by the workmen beforeseeking

direction to the manadementiv to. 'reduce the relevant

det.ails"of"an'd_"'their'""perks of the directors,
executives.._ mana§geri'a.lllpelifsoniiel of the company and

the sameléwais .al-loAvv_ed~~"'bland directed the company to

 the palrti(:"ui'ars of the salary and allowance of

 the"1:a.an_ageirs,";iirect.ors of the company. the same was

 This would only imply that the evidence

in the.,V__c3ust0dy of the company has been deliberately

,,,,"._vvit.h§'1e1ci from the Court and therefore, an adverse

 .t __i_£1ference can be raised with regard to the salaries of the

executives 8.: managers of the company being raised

Q,

,.w



 

during the years }999~2002 despite the company not

being well financially as contended by it.
29. in the case of M/S. Polycheni Limited ~vs»»

RD. Tulpule , industrial Tribunal, Bombay 8: other,

reported in (1972 (2) LLJAQQ it has been st.ate~d-.t_hua_ti' 

total wage packet of the Various categori_els*».of   thei

industries itself, including the qﬂuesgtion of 

of duties and functions, however,"'deserves"to.be gijven 

primary importance so thatwifhere isno '' reasonable

chance' " of 'hyeiartbfu'1'ni'I1.g"'- arid"'discontentment, amongst
the different.lcategori'e«s."ofthe workmen on account of

differe_ntial"~ gii1'ea't.mlentf'*"'lV which. though seemingly

fl'«_jusi._ifia:b1e,'vi. A.mayl,"i'ii""rea1 effect, be discriminatory. It is

 the duties and functions of the different

categories 'workmen must be kept: in View, in deciding

V'-the disglute which related to grant of vacation allowance

 workmen but not on the basis of the employer

    its ﬁnancial capacity to stand the burden.

/, _

/'



 

30. In the case of Ahmedabad Mill Owners'
Association and others wvs» Textile Labour Association.
Ahrneciabad reported in l968[l) LLJ it is s'r,ai.ed that the

figures of gross proﬁts has to be considered be(:a.1;i'sel'~of

wages payable to the workmen are of first cliairgepand--.all- ~

other liabilities takes their place aft.er._ the.'  ll

also stated that while dealing;"'«wiil_h'"lthle~. 

financial capacity, it would-,i5e_inappi'opriate"'..;to" solely ' V

approach the issue from iheVep*oi.nt.o'f-View o1"'an..investor.

3l.."'V'l1'"i--..A:t.::'.,1€l'::l%?3Sé"Qf'GI"é:ll;f1H§l'lOf1€ Company Ltd., ~
vs~ its 1964 (1) LLJV 131. the issue

raised t.her"eVin"weiae deciided on the peculiar facts of the

    .....

' far as each of the claims in the charter of "-.dernan.d_s are concerned, with regard to revision of is concerned. though the demand was made for W3l)'3/<3 increase on the existing basic salary. the Tribunal, considering the fact. that. the financial condition of the company during the relevantc period was '37 not sound and stable, ordered only 10% increase of the basic salary, keeping in View the evidence of \;VW.l. HO\V€V€I', Rs.50/~ weightage to be added wages for every eompieted five years was"

IS' rejected. However. it wasﬂyobserveld ':i;ha_t'-.ii-olanyy' workman reaches at the to'p,__of i,hevl'grade»"i-n. scale by virtue of increase in the"oasic salai'y. has to be paid in the next time_l":sealle.1-VReyi»sib~n in the rate of annual increment for....,assista,i1t'subwstaff was allowed by n.etj.tolthe"'extent demanded in the ~'ch'a1*te::f old'-ieniari'ds. the post of Assistant. those in the to 560/-. the existing incrernentlrate of Rsl.'-él0';"?V was sought to be increased to ribuiivai fixed it at Rs.50/--, as far as the __Assista'n_ts-'aijef. concerned. Similarly, in the case of slub§:st.aVff.--'iii."in the scale of Rs.37°0«43O existing increriieiﬁts is at Rs.20/« and the demand was Rs.50/« V."Vl.AAl3L1_ti.'the Tribunal increased it only Rs.25/--. The __d5emand for rise in the multiplier while calculating the dearness allowance from 10.19 to 19.81 was rejected. The existing House Rent Aflowance was revised from 5% Q. W. 92"

TF8"

basic pay to 10% of the basic pay as against the demand of 1.5%. As far the city comperisatory allowance is concerned. the said demand of.___the workmen to pay the same at 10% of the basic payffwas rejected. The demand made to pay Rs.300/ towards children education allowan'ee.was not'~a_Ceepé;edg in to~to, but it was fixed at VRs.1t)Q/taper Tribunal. As far as 'luneh,.v'a=llowariee'=.i_S'_:

though the demand moenmgi it was fixed at Rs.300/-- per there is an inc1'ease"'o'fa. Ti'1e"-conveyance allowance was sougl1t¥,.1o._ Rs.500/~ per month per workrnan,l""'ou't .1;Vh_eA'--sai";ile was fixed at Rs.255/M per workman. As far as the Leave Travel r__.A'Jlo'\2'v*a;r*s::e~isA.eo;i1cerned, an increase in 18% amounting to per annuni was awarded by the Tribunal. W.The d"err§3and for long service award was rejected, as also H"Vl.AAth_e.r}demand for employment of dependents in the ebmpany. With regard to health £1-isurance scheme. since no evidence was placed. the said claim was rejected by the "I'ribuna.1. As far as the loans are

--'1 Z ./t iéi.'

34. It is also 10 be noted that for the period of 1994--1999. there was 211': 21v<'»_-'rage profit, of R316 c:ro1'es but }.1ovvever. durirag the _ye-9.:-,11' 2(}{}3~:2,(.':O2, ifhe <';n1;1_._pz1.r1y §';,a.s --:>..mi'fereci loss so ém cx1;e:"1t[ of Rs.P30.8().O0,(')C:(E;f§f--«ai:'2d 'l5_,'2'4'(is{).(;'0O/~ respc-Ctivtsrly. In {'am',. the' Imted tllat there is no L516:-1:" €'\7i.'{.Ti'€:I1'(T€-'_' regéi1€.diI1xg»._:thE~}., i'ir1a11(;iai position of she c0mjj;.1n }?_A';:a.s 1s;;\l..H rcst.1*uct_uring of the wages. '--.C'i:11:1sidé§f§_n.g--lhlté iillaf. 'V the ctonlpany had sv11szt.air1e<i"'héglgéiloss d'ur§'mg 2001-

2002. Ihe (:'I,11'1€3I'I(3(3,l'11(:'.I'..T bf. '\;V21gCE'.: '~.L()'~'_'[Ah§' tune of R;s.1{)Q0~/= Qf_"RS..'3.000/» sought by t"}1:t;*._ '*-.x4%(.>1'E§,_I1V'1€§V1§,.I ~.;41'i*c<.di"(i'_e:r.i by the T1'iI:;u1'1a1 and <'Q11f'ir111ecH3y the -_lt3A2-1.:'%1x'='=...«:~'iL' Single Judge does: not call far " = 51:13,?'§:11L(;ff{:vre11Cé"iI1.._t.his appcai. 3E'$.;.'S:»:ii1_ﬁ}ila1*1y. we. find that. the Tri'z3u;2a} hi-3.8 t*1'_g'ir1f;.iy 110i: aeceptfscl the bmsic', premise of 1na}<.i11g the aéhaxrter of c3.enig=n_d {he 13e.rcent,age of inc1'<'~:ase in thzr 5_.a:~,1l;._-Hy 01"

" the. ixiglnageriai. stuff is higher £11311 than of the \'vm*}<:'1':(»:~11. Vfhiie the iegi1:imate CI(;'.Ii1€1I"1C1 of the workmzm have; to 306 grantmi by the C0urt'.s. at the 531716 tinw. halztmrta Ems {<3 «ii be stucli. keeping in mind the corn'pa.1'1y's interestalso. as the company's interest. as well as the interest ioftlie workmen are the two faces of the same coin t;'h_e over all financial position of the company...h_asVa.:'di1'ect' bearing on the interest of the xxizorkrnen same time, it is just and.»ir:eucessaryl to n'ote.that_:;thle company cannot Completely' the of its workmen who are t.he_z:bac:'l; progress and development. in this relevant to refer to certairi llblyﬁthe Hon'ble Apex Court i'nl'\"f'ario;L1s llnwthe. e;1se--._ol'*~National Textile Workers' Union *"~._--vsi;i2.a5.mgi;ris'hna;=i'& Ors. (AIR 1983 so 75). there is __r'e~»_itearatipon"'ofjthe constitutional goals viswawvis the iirorlﬁers. niaking a reference to Article 14. 23. 24, 'V-..Artic1e,V__*'39, Articles 41 , 42 , 43 and 43A of the V."l'_Conjs't:Itut1on of India. In the said judgment which deals i_a}it.h relationship of the workers vis-a--vis the Company, it is stated that it is not only shareholders who had supplied capital who are interested in the enterprises 2 {:2 EN} being run by the c.omp21i1y but the wc:r1<r:1's win) buppiy labour are also equaiiy, if not more ii'1te1'<3st.:3ci because what is pmduceci by the r:nte.rp1'is(? is the rc-;-$u1i..V 'o.i_""t1"i<-? i.abr3ur as; well as <?apii:al. it fUl't1'i€'1' sta11':_9{"'ti1€;1i.._:t'1ié;:~ owners; of C;-1pit.ai have only fia.12111(':ia1_-'r1s.i§~..(Sf: theif c01"1trii3a.:ti01'1 in production W}1i1€».:i3b0¥_}:1' t{:Qf1A1.19i'bu'i;V(§':s__ it-:.A Sweat and foil. The 0wi1c--'fs«--..Qi' czipitfaiVaré"1:p:._Vme31"e1y purcliasers of wealth in as Hiiii-:,1_(21'-1_» "(:3_pitai f%witi.10ui supply of the iabour '\~m.i¥L1;Ed--.b:§';irf:=;§eién_t and i11e_.=*ei'0r«-? iaiermi' is an equal: p21;jr£1i:*-i= :'i3'i/"iiLi"'i._("ié,1pif3.}g i1i{ em t'ii1fE¥'I'p1'iE;<:'. press I'»iewspapa':;'s :P:'ivatc) .57, i in 'tl1e«."C«:.1Vs"e.._ O1 X mi 3:: Aimvs. tgsuacn" :;;'.. {1'}':jia & om. {£961 2 IV :339;_ '_ 1%: if; ~3's_.=.t2f1_f(:d tha't'*if,_1_hs: €',i'l}}'_}}Q'}:'fi_€;'.S are paid i'.)5:1,t,r:r wages, ;*.=:n:id'« :(~:vn'é.1¥:)3e them {.0 live in fair (:ar;:i'z1fi'm*. and. dis(§}'1arge'--V'fthéir obiigations to the-. rm-:1Iabe1.'s of their fam."i'%ies;' i1'1*éi reasonabie way, they woaiid be c:nm:1ragec] ._:ii(>ViL$2§i(4)rvi{ wholeheartediv and their work xmuld Show apjxiecieible iiicrease in ::f'fi_(:_ic::1(:y. 1

38. In the very same decision. it is further stated that unusual profit made by the industry for a single year as 21 result of advehmzious Cl1'CLl311Sl'c1I1C€,'Rb:.'», or unusual loss incurred by it for similar z'e21sor;s-..l.js.i:i_oi'ild». not be allowed to play a major role in with regard to the COl1StI'L1CtlOI1 of a broad and overall View oiffthe fihaneial paosrition off the employer must be taken irito' a,ecou'ritt_:lahd lgattempt should always be n1ad--e_"'t--o reeor1(5.ile_'t.h'ernatural and just claims of the em_p1oyee.s..for. a ..fa.ipr laiidlhigher wage with the calpaifiitiy. em?p}(wyerl"'t.o 32}. --_T'here:5'or.e';t _t'he""-eoritention of the learned S1".Couns'e1_for llthe'.l.a'pp'e1lant that the wages paid to worlspimeh of 2'C--&F agerieies who carry out similar work

-the.ro11e'«oari*ied out by the workmen of the Company ('Ii1Il'*.fi'3E', bzisis of comparison cannot be accepted. ypiilthhell nature of the work performed by them is ..ﬂsirhil.ar, the wage si.ru(:ture of the company is all togethe1* different. from the wage structture of the C81?' agentties. The two entiiiies are not at all Contparable. 5» vi 5% 'Fheref.r;;*ct-. the e"-:vi(1e.nce than {.1113 wagges of the workmen of C&F agencies has to be 'the basis for fixing th<:_..wage

-strua-tr_1re of the <'0n1pa11y w01'lm2en r:anrui.:i' be az'cv§C::f.st;;$d_¢. in this context, it is I'€lC\98'ili. to r<'3}'<-3:' 10 the-: de:_t-issiivosi H the case of M/s. \N'0t)Icr;1'a'1ber;s""' 0&7. I1':c]ie.. {.;'£'.«_',!.,-ﬁes?-3 Woolcr:>mbers Workers Union &V'«._ai:~(>t]1cr."_-;'ep.mrté<:i"-~iﬁ* (1974) 8 Supreme Court: Jhas V been stated that the vc'o;j}.para"bi'e.:'C0i}c_<3r1'1s iVr_'1" the region 3h0u1r} be simiiar in the -T.li'1V:<i%'v'VU17b;..1$ih.¢SS_'_.and it should not be disprovpc2rtVVi~3nzizteiy .E:ét1'g«:;1" far as }:;:')€s=:aible.

the ti-32,1!"1'1'C""§_";A€tAVi:{)1'ﬂu;3-?1':'(:d,W'ifh {H6114 ]aE:gr.>ur t'c:-rem: <==:.~;t_ent of i:':1€.i1" c:{2.:jst£>.111Vc<r.sV.'«fi:eiT:=._;51*c)'t1.:.:5 and Eosses and ;;m_\-' (':H1(3l"' regievam Ci;-r1s'ici.€:r'v;e1ﬁo_|.i*~--'sheuld 13:: (:(;1npa1*e':?J_l<.-. 'A/hi(:}'i d€2cL1111éi1'i.*e21§/ @\ride.n<.-e zmd canrmt be tlecided "v :s«a3l€;ij,2_:'{3I1"i4h::jV1-3f1t'€rc+st:ed testimony of ('me parties' and I tl'1'e§1* \x!it._I.3é;~:§-sés.

4%)". Simiirnly, the :;_:r3nt.e1'1ti0r_1 LiI'g'fECi by thc: Ecamed Séi1i--<i:' Counsei on behalf of the g':r:>;1zpa,n.y {hail when " -"_i'_'%1{:r<;2 5000 wc)rk.n1e;=,z'1 errapioytrzi by the <;:<f:rt1;3ar|jy' 1.11%? cause nf only 6'? w()2:1an:'1e:'1 2:1'. Barag;?E<)m3 cas'm01. be considered in isolation is also not a~Ceept.able. The nature of work. performed by various unions of the company t:hrougho1.1t the country may r1ot"»..be comparable with one another at all. The worl_g"pert'o_rineo'~.

by the workmen at Bangalore may not ' workmen In other places in t.he[eoL§ntrfy 4an.'dA.'v-Ieeweerea. .' Therefore, there is 11othi'1'1-g ina."t"ai«:ing _:§into_ consideration the nature of theyilvaork 'performed by the workmen at Bar1gaEo1*-eﬁfor of Considering the wage structure anri._ot1*1eree._deniaf1§:t's" made in the charter" "or ..§lj::111a:r1ds""by- the'"'"w'orkmen. In fact. the appellantllhas .sVtat'e.t;lll'inTi-is,.memorandarn of appeal that it has entered i1f1'j:;:o ta tirrne settlement at Calcutta H"-v_Co'{r.ei"ingA 60 worlm'1en for a period of 7 years from 'to_:'3..1l.2010. If it can enter into a wage sett,1ementl'j~_.for a particular group of workmen at a pa1"tiCL1l_ar place, then. the same can be adopted in the ._ease'}'ofworkmen at Bangalore also.

41. As far as the financial loss suffered by the Mappellzint during the year "1999 to 2002 is concerned.

1..

A.,.. .,.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court