Delhi District Court
17. In Remington Rand Of India vs The Workmen on 10 March, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH BABU LAL: POIT-II,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D. 06/08
Workmen Bhopal Singh & 4 Others Workmen
Representedby Theatre Workers
Association ( Regd.) through its
Vice President Sh. Nagendra Pal Singh.
Versus
M/s L.T.G. Auditorium, Management
1, Copernix Marg, New Delhi.
Date of institution 08.02.08
Arguments heard on 08.03.10
Date of award 10.03.10
AWARD
1. Workmen through their Union, Theatre Workers
Association, 24 New Layalpur Extension, Delhi 51, have
raised present dispute and on failure of conciliation
proceedings, appropriate Government referred the
dispute to this tribunal in following terms of reference :-
(1)'' Whether demand of workmen for annual
increment is justified; and if yes, at what rate
and from which date ?''
(2) '' Whether demand of workmen for house
Rent Allowance is justified; and if yes, at what
rate and from which date ''?
(3) '' Whether demand of workmen for separate
food and transport allowance for those working
over time is justified and if yes, at what rate and
2
from which date ''?
(4) '' Whether demand of workmen for interest
free loan and payment in easy and interest free
installment is justified; and if yes, what
directions are necessary in this respect ''?
(5) '' Whether demand of workmen for uniform,
shoes and its maintenance allowance is
justified; and if yes, what directions are
necessary in this respect ''?
2. In the statement of claim, it is alleged that
Management has not been providing various legal
facilities to its workmen and due to rise in price of
essentials, they are unable to maintain their family
properly with salary being given to them. Workmen
allegedly became member of the association and in
meeting dated 22.1.06 Mr. N.P.Singh, Vice President of the
Union was authorized to raise demand on behalf of the
workmen. Union allegedly sent a demand notice to the
Management on 9.5.06 but Management did not bother to
give any reply. It is alleged that a general body meeting of
the Association was called on 22.1.06 and it was decided
to raise an industrial dispute. It is alleged that workmen
are not being paid salary as per length of service,
experience and seniority and that they are being paid
between Rs. 3000-4000 and with this meagre salary they
are unable to provide even two times meal to their family.
It is alleged that they are entitled to annual increment @
25% of their wages, HRA @ 30% of their basic wages,
3
bonus @ 20% per year, conveyance allowance @ 20% of
basic. It is alleged that there is no canteen facilitity to
provide tea, snacks and dinner to employees at
concessional rates and late night allowance, therefore,
they are entitled for such facilities also. It is alleged that
they are also entitled to Rs. 100 per month as washing
allowance. It is alleged that management is not providing
any financial help to them, therefore, they may be
provided interest free loan facility also. It is alleged that
Management is making huge profits, therefore, it is
capable of meeting the demandsof the workmen.
3. In the WS, preliminary objections have been
taken that workmen are not members of the alleged
union, therefore, Union is not competent to file the
present dispute and there is no espousal. On merits, case
of the Management is that Management has been paying
more than minimum Wages and also providing all other
facilities as required under the law and that workmen by
way of present dispute can not compel it to pay the wages
and other benefits as per their whims and fancies. It is
alleged that demands of the workmen are unjustified and
thus can not be met.
4. In the rejoinder, workmen have reiterated and
reaffirmed all the facts as alleged in statement of claim
and denied all the facts as set out in the WS.
4
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the cause of the workmen has been duly
espoused ?
(2) As per terms of reference ?
6. In other to prove their case, workmen have filed
affidavits of Sh. Nagendra Pal Singh ( Vice President of the
Union) and Sh. M.S. Rawat who have been examined and
cross examined as WW--1 and WW--2. On the other
hand, Management has examined one Sh. Sawan Sharma
as MW--1.
7. I have heard AR for the parties and have fully
gone through record of the case. My issuewise findings
are as under:-
8. Finding on issue No 1
Issue No 1 is whether the cause of the workmen
has been duly espoused. It is alleged in the WS, workers
are not members of the alleged Union, therefore, present
Union is not competent to file the present dispute and
that there is no proper espousal. Same facts have been
deposed by MW--1 Sh Sawan Sharma in his affidavit.
WW--2 workman Sh. M.S. Rawat in his affidavit has
deposed that he along with other affected workmen had
attended the meeting of the Union held on 11.10.05,
5
10.1.06 and 22.1.06 and that present case has been duly
espoused by Threater workers Association through Sh.
Nagendra Pal Singh, Vice President of the Union. WW--1
Sh. Nagendra Pal Singh has also deposed that he is
president of the said Union and had met Management on
number of occasions to meet legitimate demands of the
workmen but it failed to accede to genuine and legal
demands of the workman, therefore, a general meeting of
the Union was called on 22.1.06 under his chairmanship
which was attended by a large numbers of the employees
of the Management. It is deposed that a resolution to file
case of general demand on behalf of the workmen was
passed in the said meeting which has been proved as Ex
WW1/8. A demand notice dated 9.5.06 is also deposed to
have been served on the Management.
9. It has been argued on behalf of the workmen that
resolution espousing the cause of the workmen has been
proved as Ex WW1/8. It is deposed that meeting was
attended by office bearers of the Union as well by workers
of the Management, therefore, cause of the workman has
been duly espoused. No argument has been advanced on
behalf of the Management.
10. Workmen have proved on record photocopies of
extract of the meeting held on 11.10.05,10.1.06 and 22.1.06
which are Ex WW1/6, WW1/7 and WW1/8 respectively. Ex
6
WW1/8 contains a resolution to raise industrial dispute on
behalf of the workmen.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that Ex WW1/6 to 8
are only photocpies and documents were tentatively
exhibited subject to production of the originals for
inspection of AR for the management. Ordersheet dated
6.8.09 shows that AR for the workman had brought
original documents for inspection of AR for the
management and that he did inspect and he had stated
that he did not want to put further question to WW--1
Nagender Pal Singh. Therefore, authenticity of Ex WW1/6
to 8 stands proved and they duly stand exhibited.
Therefore, when a resolution had been passed to raise
industrial dispute on behalf of the workman, I come to the
conclusion that cause of the workmen has been duly
espoused. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of
workmen and against the Management.
12. Finding on issue No 2
Issue no 2 as per terms of reference. Terms of
reference are (1) whether demand of workmen for annual
increment is justified; and if yes, at what rate and from
which date; ((2) whether demand of workmen for house
Rent Allowance is justified; and if yes, at what rate and
from which date; (3) whether demand of workmen for
separate food and transport allowance for those working
7
over time is justified and if yes, at what rate and from
which date (4) whether demand of workmen for interest
free loan and payment in easy and interest free
installment is justified; and if yes, what directions are
necessary in this respect (5) whether demand of workmen
for uniform, shoes and its maintenance allowance is
justified; and if yes, what directions are necessary in this
respect.
13. WW--2 Sh. M.S. Rawat in his affidavit has
deposed that Management has not been providing
various legal facilities to its workmen and particularly the
proper monthly wages were not being provided. It is
deposed that Management has failed to provide
satisfactory pay scale to him. It is deposed that plea of the
Management that it is providing wages as per Minimum
Wages Act is not tenable inasmuch as rise in price of
essentials. It is deposed that general demands raised by
the workmen as contained in para 5 of the statement of
claim are genuine and justified.
14. MW--1 Sh. Sawan Sharma in his affidavit has
deposed that Management has been paying more than
minimum Wages and also providing all other facilities as
required under the law and that workmen by way of
present dispute can not compel it to pay the wages and
other benefits as per their whims and fancies. It is
8
deposed that demands of the workmen are unjustified
and thus can not be met.
15. It has been argued on behalf of the workmen that
workmen have been working with the Management for
the last about 8-12 years, however, they are being paid
minimum wages in accordance with MinimumWages Act.
It is argued that it is basic right of the workman to get
annual increment in the wages apart from HRA,
conveyance allowance and loan facilities etc. It is also
argued that minimum Wages Act applies only to new
establishments and not to those which have been running
for last 10-12 years, therefore, workmen are entitled for
the benefits claimed by them.
16. On the other hand, it has been argued by AR for
the management that it is admitted case of the workmen
that minimum wages as declared by the Government are
being paid to them, however, their demands can not be
met because financial capacity of the Management is not
such as their demands could be met. It is argued that that
no evidence has been brought on record that similar
industries in the region are paying more than whyat is
being paid to the workmen by the Management nor any
evidence has been brought on record that financial
capacity of the Management is such that it has been
earning enormous profits, therefore, workmen could say
9
that they have right to share the profits. It is argued that
in the absence of such evidence, demands of the
workmen are not justified and thus can not be met.
17. In Remington Rand of India vs The workmen
1972 Lb. It is correct that 632 ( SC), it has been held:-
'' The foundation of the principle of industry-
cum-region is that, as far as possible, there
should be uniformity of conditions of service in
comparable concerns in the industry in a
region, so that there is no imbalance in the
conditions of service between workmen in one
establishment and those in the rest. The
danger otherwise, would be migration of
labour to the one where there are more
favourable conditions, from those where
conditions are less favourable. Therefore, the
mere fact that a particular concern can bear an
additional liability would, by itself, be no
ground to impose upon it, such extra
obligation''.
18. In workmen of Jessop & Co. Ltd vs Jessop & Co.
Ltd ( 1964) 1 LLJ 451, it was pointed by out Hon'ble
Supreme Court that one of the reasons behind the
principle of region-cum-industry is that concerns of more
or less the same standing, in the same industry, should
have, as nearly as possible, the same wages, so that they
might stand on par with one another in the matter of
competition. Otherwise, if different rates of wages are
fixed in a particular concern, which are much higher than
the prevailing rates of wages in concerns of similar
standing in the same industry, it will be put to a
10
disadvantage when it comes to compete in the market for
the sale of its product. It is for this reason, when scales of
pay are being fixed, the tribunals look at what are called
comparable concerns, in framing the wage structure.
19. Coming to onus of proof in this regard, it is duty
of the petitioners who have raised the demand to allege
and prove as to what are comparable pay structure in
various industries engaged in similar business and what is
financial capacity of the respondent Management to meet
demands so that comparative evaluation could be made that demands put up by the Union or workmen are just, fair and reasonable and in order to keep business harmony in the industry, they are to be accepted keeping in view profits earning capacity of a particular concern. So far as pay structure of similar concerns engaged in analogous business is concerned, workmen have not led any evidence as to pay structure of various categories of employees particularly in respect of head of demands of claimants in this case. No witness has been examined from any of the concern engaged in similar business by workmen. No evidence has been produced on record as to the wages being paid in various concerns to its employees engaged in similar business. Therefore, there is nothing on record on the basis of which I can come to the conclusion as to what are the pay structure of various 11 kinds of employees in the various business concerns engaged in analogous concern as Management is engaged in, I ,therefore, come to the conclusion that workmen have failed to prove the reasonable pay structure of various kinds of employees in analogous concerns, and there is nothing on record on the basis of which this Tribunal could come to conclusion that workmen are entitled to higher wages on the basis of region cum industry formula.
20. The second requirement for appreciating demands of the workmen is that Management should have been earning enormous profits. It is the right of the workmen as a collective force to share profits earned by industry because they are producer of the profits. But for that purpose they have to prove as to what is the financial capacity of the concern they are engaged in. In the present case, workmen have not placed on record any evidence or document as to what is quantum of gross annual turn over of the Management and what is quantum of profits made by it so that this tribunal could have come to a definite conclusion that the Management was earning profits and it was capable to bear the burden of demands raised by the workmen.
21. It is not case of the workmen that they are being paid less than Minimum Wages. Payment of Minimum 12 Wages is a rule. However, if they claim higher wages and other facilities as demanded by them in this case, they have to allege and prove facts having bearing on pay structure on the basis of criterion based on region-cum- industry. In the present case, workmen have not alleged as to pay structure prevalent in similar industries in the region nor they have averred anything about financial capacity of the Management. But fact remains that it was for the workmen to prove either on the basis of primary evidence or secondary evidence that Management is making substantial profits. When they have not led any evidence at all as to what is pay structure in same kinds of industries for same kinds of workmen within NCR, this Tribunal does not have any material on the basis of which it can say that they are entitled to benefits as demanded by them inasmuch as they are getting more than Minimum Wages. Minimum Wages Act takes into account, house rent, conveyance allowance and periodical increase in the wages. First demand as regards annual increment is concerned, workman M.S. Rawat ( WW--2) in his cross examination has admitted he is getting increment every year right from his date of appointments as per order of GNCT of Delhi, therefore, demand of the workmen for annual increment is not justified. As regards demand of HRA and transport 13 allowance is concerned, as already pointed out, Minimum Wages consists of HRA, DA and conveyance allowance etc, therefore, this demand is also not justified.
22. As regards interest free loan and payment in easy and interest free installment is concerned, WW--2 in his cross examination has admitted that he had taken loan of Rs. 5000/- from the Management and same was repaid by him in installments. Moreover, no provisions have been brought to my notice under which Management is under an obligation to provide facility of interest free money lending to th workmen. Though, Management has been providing loan facilities to the workmen, nevertheless, demand of the workmen for interest free loan is not justified.
23. As regards demand for uniform and shoes is concerned, WW--2 in his cross examination has admitted that he has been getting dress for last two years and they are getting it every year. Therefore, when they have already been getting uniform, it means that this demand has been acceded to by the Management. As regards demand for shoes along with uniform is concerned, there is no evidence on record if Management has been providing shoes also. When it has been providing uniform, it is also under obligation to provide shoes also. Therefore, workmen are entitled for shoes along with 14 uniform. When it has been providing uniform, it is also under obligation to provide uniform maintenance allowance (washing allowance) as admissible under the law. Keeping in view the present price level, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met if each workman is paid Rs. 150/- per month as uniform maintenance allowance. Therefore, workmen are entitled for uniform maintenance allowance (washing allowance) @ Rs 150 per month from the date of reference.
24. Next demand of the workmen is regarding food allowance and transport allowance for those working on overtime. Case of the Management in its WS is that he has been providing snacks, tea and dinner during late hour and that Management is also paying conveyance charges to workmen besides overtime wages. In the rejoinder, workmen have not alleged any facts to the contrary except bare denial. Bare denial is no denial. Moreover, WW--2 in his cross examination has admitted that he is getting overtime. No suggestion has been put to MW--1 that it has been not providing late night conveyance allowance, facilities of snacks, tea and dinner for workmen who have been working late night. In the absence of such evidence, it can not be said that Management has not been providing such facilities to the workmen, therefore, demand of the workmen on this count is not justified. 15
25. In view of reasons given above, I come to the conclusion that demand of the workman on account of annual increment, HRA, separate food and transport allowance, interest free loan, uniform are unjustified. However, they are entitled to one pair of shoes and uniform maintenance allowance (washing allowance) @ Rs. 150/- per month from the date of reference. They are not entitled for any other relief. This issue is accordingly decided.
26. Relief:- In view of findings on issue No 2, I hold that demand of the workman on account of annual increment, HRA, separate food and transport allowance, interest free loan, uniform are unjustified. However, they are entitled to one pair of shoes and uniform maintenance allowance (washing allowance) @ Rs. 150/- per month from the date of reference. They are not entitled for any other relief. Award is accordingly passed. Same be sent to appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on 10.03.10 (BABU LAL)
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
16I.D. No 06/08 10.3.10 Present None for the parties Vide separate award, I have held that demand of the workman on account of annual increment, HRA, separate food and transport allowance, interest free loan, uniform are unjustified. However, they are entitled to one pair of shoes and uniform maintenance allowance (washing allowance) @ Rs. 150/- per month from the date of reference. They are not entitled for any other relief. Award is accordingly passed. Same be sent to appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to record room.
( BABU LAL) POIT-II/KKD COURTS DELHI/ 10.3.10