KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workmen concerned In the present appeal are employees of a printing press now at Poona which belongs to the Kirloekar Broa. , Ltd. The press was formerly situated at Kirloekarvadi at which place the appellant-company has also a factory manufacturing pumps. crushers, ploughs, machine tools and other machinery. A union of the workmen employed In the Kirloskar Bros:, Ltd. , Kirloskarvadi, was formed in 1951 under the name of Kirloskar Kamgar Union, Kirloskarvadi. This union had among its members, workmen employed In the factory as also workmen employed in the printing press. On 7/05/1958, the union submitted a charter of demands on behalf of these members. A further charter of demands was submitted on 19/12/1958. The matter was token up by the conciliation officer on 14/04/1959 but his efforts proved unsuccessful and on 2/09/1959 the conciliation officer reported to the government his failure to settle the matter. In the meantime on 7/06/1969, the company shifted the printing press from Kirloskarvadi to Poona. About 67 per cent of the workmen employed In the press went to Poona to continue their service In the company's press there. The remainder who decided not to go to Poona were paid retrenchment compensation and other dues to accordance with law. On 20/11/1959 the government of the State of Bombay referred the dispute between the company and its workmen for adjudication to a tribunal consisting of Sri J. A. Bazl. The schedule to the reference mentions eight matters as in dispute. They are ;

(2.) On 25/12/1959* the union filed a written statement purporting to be on behalf of not only the workmen In the appellant's factory at Kirloskarvadi but also for the employees of the press at Poona. In Its written statement on 26/02/1960, the company contended inter alia

(3.) The first question which arouse for the tribunal's decision was whether the previous award between the parties had been validly terminated. The tribunal held that It bad been validly terminated and made an award which has been described as award part I dealing with this question only. In the present appeal we are not concerned with award part 1. A farther award was made by the tribunal on 10/03/1962 as award part II dealing with some of the matters get oat In the reference. The tribunal rejected the company's contention that the workmen of the press at Poona were not covered by the reference and also the contention that the union which had appeared before the tribunal as representing these workmen did not In law represent these workmen. The tribunal then dealt with some of the demands and gave Its award. It rejected demands 1, 2 and 7; reserved Its decision on demand 3 so far as directions as regards workmen mentioned In annexure B were concerned; also reserved its decision as regards demand 4 and made awards In favour of workmen In respect of demands 5, 6, 8. The award takes no notice of the company's contention that the company's press Is an Independent business, entirely separate and distinct from the company's factory, producing pumps and other machinery. This appeal by the company is against this award II only in respect of the employees of the press at Poona.