PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC PVT LIMITED Vs. KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE OF BOMBAY :ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals filed by special leave of this Court an important question of law as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits of the kinds filed in the two cases is common. Mr. Vimadalal, learned counsel for the appellant company in Civil Appeal No.922 of 1973 followed by Mr. Nariman, appearing for respondents 3 to 6 and Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant company in Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1972 argued in support of the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Mr. Sorabjee, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondents 1 and 2 vehemently combated the proposition. He was followed by Mr. Som Nath Iyer; learned counsel for the respondent Union in Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1972. We shall proceed to state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 922 of 1973 first, discuss the point of jurisdiction as also the other points involved in that appeal and then briefly refer to the facts of the other case.

(2.) The appellant company carries on a big industry and owns several plants. One such plant is situated at Kurla, Bombay. In this plant there is a department known as Motor Production Department. The dispute relates to the workmen of this department. There seem to be three groups of workmen in the department aforesaid. One group was represented by Engineering Mazdoor Sabha - hereinafter called the Sabha Union which is a registered Trade. Union and was once a recognized union of the workmen of the appellant company. Respondents 1 and 2 who instituted the suit in question in the City Civil Court at Bombay are members of this union. Later on the Sabha Union was recognized and another registered Trade Union known as Association of Engineering workers - hereinafter called the Association Union - was recognised -by the appellant company. This Association Union, respondent No. 3, was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the action. Besides the members of these two unions, there are certain workmen who are members of neither.

(3.) An incentive scheme providing for certain incentive payments to the workmen of the Motor Production Department was introduced by the appellant company in pursuance of agreements entered from time to time between the company and the Sabha Union. The last of such agreements executed between them was dated the 31st December,1966. It appears that at the time of the execution of the last agreement there were 425 workmen in the department Broadly speaking the incentive scheme was to make extra payments at the rate of 3.5 per cent over the basic production of 650 units upto the target of 900 on even extra production of 25 units. In other words, the workmen were to get 35 per cent. more if they produced 900 units in a month of 25 working days. The next target fixed was 1250 units payable at the rate of 4 per cent. per 25 units. In other words, the workmen were to get 35 per cent. + 56 per cent, total 91 per cent more if they reached the production target of 1250 per month. It further appears that after the recognition of the Association Union, 27 more persons who were previously learners were taken in as regular temporary employees in the Motor Production Department on and from 1st September, 1970. The strength of the workmen thus according to the case of the appellant and respondent No. 3 went up from 425 to 452, naturally necessitating the revision of the norm and target figures of the incentive scheme. Some sort of arrangement was arrived at between the company and the Association Union which led to a protest by the Sabha Union in October, 1970. Eventually a definite settlement in writing was arrived at between the appellant and respondent No. 3 on the 9th of January, 1971 making the settlement effective from 1-9-1970. The norm figure of 650 units was raised to 725 and the first and the second target figures were raised from 900 to 975 and 1250 to 1325 respectively. The rates of incentive payment at 3.5 per cent in the first target and 4 per cent in the second target were retained. Thus the maximum incentive payment of 91 percent. was kept unaltered. Broadly speaking, therefore, the increase of 75 units at every stage of the production was attributable to the addition of the strength of 27 workmen in the Motor Production Department. The members of the Sabha Union, however, felt aggrieved by this, because, they thought the 27 newly added workmen were merely learners and could not be eligible for being taken in the pool of the incentive scheme. It would adversely affect the incentive payments which were to be made to the existing 425 workmen. According to the case of respondents 1 and 2 they for the first time learnt about the intention of the company to bring about a change in the service conditions when the altered scheme was put on the Notice Board on the 1 st March, 71. The two workmen who were the members of the Sabha Union rushed to the court and instituted their plaint on the 8th April, 1971 in the City Civil Court at Bombay seeking the permission of the court to institute the suit in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure - hereinafter called the Code representing the workmen who were members of the Sabha Union as also those who were neither its members nor members of the Association Union. On an objection being raised subsequently respondents 4 to 6 were added as defendants 3 to 5 to represent the 27 disputed workmen.