HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED BOMBAY HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED BOMBAY Vs. B N DONGRE:HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES UNION:HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES UNION BOMBAY:HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) SPECIAL leave granted in the aforesaid special leave petitions.

(3.) . Indisputably the existing dearness allowance formula was in vogue for many years before the Company gave a Notice of Change under Section 9-A of the 1.D. Act sometime in 1976. The Company had entered into settlements in 1979 and 1983 with a section of the workmen whereunder it had agreed to continue the existing dearness allowance formula at certain levels of salary. It is unnecessary to go into the details in regard to the said settlements but it would be sufficient to say that the extant scheme provided neutralisation at the lowest level varying between 95% and 100% whereas for those drawing higher pay the neutralisation was much more than ordinarily granted to that class of employees. The main justification for imposition of a ceiling on dearness allowance payable to workmen drawing a basic salary exceeding Rs. 500.00 per month was that it exceeded what other comparable companies paid by way of dearness allowance to those whose basic wage exceeded Rs. 500.00 per month. The tribunal noted that in such comparable companies, 163 having no ceiling on VDA, the percentage of dearness allowance was quite low and, therefore, it did not result in any distortion in the wage-structure. The learned Single Judge while examining the impact of the dearness allowance formula on the wage-structure pointed out that the emoluments of workmen exceed the emoluments received by the junior executive staff of the Company notwithstanding the fact that the latter are promotion posts. Due to this reason workmen are unwilling to accept promotions as that would result in a shrinkage in their total emoluments. Such a situation, points out the learned Single Judge, is not conducive to efficient working of the Company. In this view of the matter the learned Single Judge upheld the award insofar as it placed a ceiling on dearness allowance as explained earlier. It also upheld the tribunal's decision making the same retrospective w.e.f. 1/10/1979.