Supreme Court of India
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Labour Court-I, Kanpur And Ors. on 8 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1995)IILLJ637SC, 1995SUPP(1)SCC223, AIRONLINE 1993 SC 474
Author: P.B. Sawant
Bench: P.B. Sawant, Yogeshwar Dayal
ORDER P.B. Sawant, J.
1. In this case, the respondent-workman had raised an industrial dispute claiming the wages of Designer-Sprayman although he was initially engaged by the appellant-mills as a Spray man. The reference made by the State-Government read as follows:
Whether the action of the employer in denying the wages of designer-sprayman to Shri Gayas Ahmed Khan, s/o. Shri Abdul Razak Khan working in shift general, Engraving Department is legal and justified? If not, what benefit/relief is the workman entitled and with what other details?
2. The Labour Court recorded a finding that although the workman was engaged as a spray-man, he was actually doing the work of duplicating the designs and also as a tracer in addition to his work as spray man. The Court further found that the salary of a designer in the other departments of the appellant-mills was Rs. 740/-per month whereas that of the tracer was Rs. 850 and Rs. 620 per month depending upon the departments to which they were attached. Since the workman was not a designer but only a duplicator of designs and was also a tracer and a sprayman, the Labour Court fixed the basic wage of the workman at Rs. 500 per month by its award of April 9, 1981. This award was challenged by the appellant-mills before the High Court in a writ petition. The High Court by its impugned order dated December 16, 1985 held on a concession made by the learned Counsel appearing for the workman that the terms of reference made to the Labour Court did not give it jurisdiction to create the post of a sprayman-designer. It merely called upon the court to fix the salary of the sprayman-designer. Secondly it found that the demand raised by the workman was severable from what was awarded and the award should be confined to the demand for increase in basic wages. The court also found that since the workman in his statement of claim had confined his demand to the basic wage of Rs. 300 per month, the Labour Court could not have given more basic wage than that.
3. Shri Sanghi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-mills, contended that the reference did not authorise the Labour Court to create the post of a designer-sprayman since no such post existed in the mills. Since the Labour Court as well as the High Court had given the basic wage of a designer-sprayman, when no such post existed, the courts had exceeded their jurisdiction. He further contended that the workman was originally a Mazdoor and was promoted to the post of a sprayman and even in the sprayman's salary, he was given Rs. 6 as additional pay. Since he was doing no work other than that of tracing, he was not entitled to any basic wage above the one which was given to him when he was engaged for the purpose. In any case, he submitted that the jump in salary from Rs. 36 p.m. to Rs. 300 p.m. was unwarranted.
4. We must confess that it has not been possible for us to appreciate the circumstances under which the learned Counsel appearing for the workman had made concession before the High Court that the Labour Court was not called upon to create the post of a designer-sprayman. A careful reading of the reference shows that the demand was two-fold, viz., creation of the post of a designer-sprayman and fixation of the salary of the said post. Without creating the post, it was not possible for the Labour Court to fix the salary of the post. There is, therefore, an apparent contradiction in the decision of the High Court.
5. As regards the contention that the workman was doing no work other than that of a sprayman, we find that the Labour Court has recorded a finding which is not disturbed by the High Court, that in fact the workman was doing the work of duplicator of designs as well as of a tracer and a sprayman. It is a finding of fact and cannot be disturbed under Article 136. As regards the contention advanced by Shri Sanghi that the basic wage given by the High Court is many times more than what the workman was getting as a sprayman, it may be pointed out that in fact the workman had examined two witnesses to show what was the salary of a designer and a tracer in the other sections/departments of the mills. According to this evidence, the Designer in Engraving Department was getting Rs. 740 per month whereas the designer in the section in which the workman was engaged was getting Rs. 620 per month as the basic wage. If this was the salary of the designer and the tracer in other sections, we do not think that the High Court committed any error in fixing Rs. 300 as the basic wage when the workman was doing the work of a tracer, a duplicator of designs and also of a sprayman.
6. In the circumstances, we confirm the order of the High Court for the reasons given above and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
C.A. No... of 1993 @ SLP (C) No. 915 of 1987
7. This special leave petition filed by the workman was directed to be heard along with the above appeal.
8. Leave granted. Heard both counsel. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-workman in this appeal is that the terms of the reference did not limit the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to granting the basic wage of Rs. 300 only. It is in the statement of claim filed in support of the reference that the workman had restricted his demand of basic wage to Rs. 300. However, in the subsequent pleadings which were filed with the permission of the Labour Court, the workman had claimed Rs. 500 as the basic wage. Hence there was nothing wrong if the Labour Court had granted the basic wage of Rs. 500 per month. The High Court had erred in holding that since the workman had claimed no more than Rs. 300 as the basic wage, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the basic wage of Rs. 500. It was, therefore, urged by the learned Counsel that the High Court's decision should be set aside and the workman should be granted Rs. 500 per month as the basic wage.
9. There is no doubt that the terms of the reference did not restrict the claim of the workman to Rs. 300 per month and since the statement of claim was supplemented with the leave of the Labour Court, and the supplementary pleadings made out a claim for Rs. 500 per month as the basic wage, the Labour Court's jurisdiction was not confined to granting the basic wage of Rs. 300 per month. However, we find that the claim for the basic wage of Rs. 500 made by the workman was on the basis of the basic wage of the tracer and the designer. Admittedly on the facts found, the workman is not doing the work of the designer. He only duplicates the designs. The basic wage which the Labour Court gave to the workman was on the basis that he was a designer-sprayman. Hence we are of the view that the reduction of the basic wage by the High Court from Rs. 500 to Rs. 300 per month cannot be said to be unjustified. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.