WILLIAMSONS (INDIA) PRIVATE, LIMITED Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, Williamsons (India) Private, Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen. The appellant is a private limited company which has been established and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in 1947. Its business consists mainly of importing mills stores, such as leather belting, pickers, bobbins and machinery cloths. It no doubt buys and sells similar articles manufactured in India, but this part of its business is insignificant. The secretaries of the appellant are Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., Ltd. The appellant has entrusted its secretarial and accounts work to the said secretaries who carry out the said work through the staff working directly under them on the remuneration which has been agreed between the appellant and them. The present dispute is concerned with the sales department managed by the appellant company itself. In this sales department, the appellant employees sixteen workmen, two of them are designed as stenographers-cum-clerks, one typist-cum-clerk, one godown-keeper, one assistant godown-keeper, eight unskilled workmen and three motor-car drivers.

(2.) THROUGH their union, the respondents made demands on the appellant on 29 October 1957. These demands related to the wage structure, dearness allowance, washing allowance leave, gratuity scheme, uniforms, medical aid and bonus. These demands could not be settled amicably and so, ultimately they were referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal by the Government of Bombay on 26 July 1958. The reference included nine demands in all, eight of which have already been specified and the ninth was in respect of the retrospective operation of the benefits of some of the demands made by the respondents. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by them, the tribunal made its award on 21 April 1960. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.The main point which Sri Sastri has made before us on behalf of the appellant is that on the finding made by the tribunal on the principal question about the financial position of the appellant and its capacity to bear the burden, it would follow that the major portion of the award relating to wage structure and dearness allowance cannot be sustained. He has also contended that the tribunal was in error in holding that concerns like Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., Greaves Cotton, Gannon Dunkerley, Parry & Co. and Forbes Forbes & Co. are comparable to the appellant. It is on these two points that the validity of the substantial portion of the award is changed before us by Sri Sastri.

(3.) HAVING reached this conclusion, the question which we have to consider is : what order we should make on the present appeal ? Sri Dudhia for the respondents saw the infirmity of some of the reasons adopted by the tribunal, but he contended that in considering the financial position of the appellant it may nor be irrelevant to have regard to the fact that the appellant was distributing to its there directors an unconsciously large amount under the head "commission, remuneration, motor-car, travelling and entertainment allowance." In fact, according to Sri Dudhia, the total emoluments paid to the directors are of the order of Rs. 2, 20, 875. If the appellant can afford to fritter away such a large amount on its directors, it is not open to the appellant to contend that its financial position is not satisfactory. There may be some force in this argument.Besides, Sri Dudhia stated before us that in fact, the appellant's business during the years subsequent to the date of the award has very much improved and what looks like speculation in the award has actually come true. In that connexion, he pointed out that in the last year, the appellant has given by way of bonus four months' basic wages to its employees. Sri Dudhia's suggestion, therefore is that of the award is set aside, his clients should be given a chance to justify their claim before the tribunal and so, the matter be remanded to the tribunal with a direction that it should examine the problem once again in the light of such additional evidence as the parties may lead before it. In fact, having come to the conclusion that the reasons given by the tribunal in support of its finding that the appellant should bear the financial burden of the wage structure devised by the award are not satisfactory, we tried to see if we could settle the dispute ourselves in appeal, but that turned out to be very difficult; and so, we have decided to set aside the award and send the case back for disposal in accordance with law in the light of this judgment.