REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner. Messrs Remington Rand of India Limited, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi (Shri R. K. Baweja) over-ruling certain preliminary objections to the industrial dispute adjudicating a reference made by then Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, by his order dated 28th March 1970 and the further corrigendum issued on ,10th June 1970.

(2.) Messrs Remington Rand of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) has its registered office and head office at Calcutta; it has also a Regional office at Delhi at which the main business is the sale and service of typewriters and office equipment. There are three branches of the company at Chandigarh, Jaipur and Amritsar and two depots at Jammu and Simla. The branches and depots are under the over-all administrative control of the regional office, the day-to-day administration being looked after by the branch managers. The regional office is no doubt under the control of the head office at Calcutta. It is admitted vide rejoinder affidavit of the Administrative Officer. Shri P. P. Saraf) that the Delhi regional office has "overall administrative control over its branches". What was only denied was only "the complete administrative control" even in "minor day- to-day matters". There are two offices at Delhi, one is at Asaf Ali Road and another in Parliament Street, New Delhi. It was stated by Shri Saraf in the course of his evidence that the day-today instructions are given by the branch manager to the employees of the branch: he gives them casual leave and short term leave. The regional office at Delhi controls branches in the matter of over-all policy as shaped by the Calcutta Head Office. The Administrative Officer of the entire region, including the three branches and the two depots, appoints employees of the branch against the sanctioned strength and issues appointment letters himself. Charge sheets to the branch employees are always issued by the regional office at Delhi and disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the regional office and punishments are imposed by him after getting the approval of the head office. The branch manager has to call for explanations of the employees working in the region, caution them and issue warning letters to them. The pay roll is prepared at the branch level and remittances are sent from Delhi to the banch manager, who sends them to the resident mechanics in the region (by means of draft) directly where they are posted, on the basis of the prepared payrolls bonus is also similarly paid. Earned leave is sanctioned by the regional office. There are no managers at the depots which are in charge of persons in the clerical grade. The branch manager is not competent to enhance the dearness allowance and pay scales, etc. of those working under him.

(3.) In the year 1959 there was a demand for the revision of the scheme of dearness allowance by the workmen in Delhi and the dispute was referred for the adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, which passed an award. This was challenged before the Supreme Court which by its decision dated 26th February 1962 in Remington Rand of India v. Its workmen (1962-1 LLJ 287) revised the scheme of payment of dearness allowance what is material for the present controversy is that it fixed the maximum dearness allowance at Rs. 200 per month. This was later confirmed by a settlement between the company and the representatives of the employees' association on 14th November 1962 (copy of which is Annexure 2 to the petition). By a circular dated 19th January 1963, (vide Annexure III) the maximum dearness allowance was increased by the company of its own accord from Rs. 200 to Rs. 270 with effect from 21st January 1963. There was a subsequent dispute between the workers in the various branches and depots in the Delhi region who raised a number of demands and it was referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi (I.D. No. 197 of 1963). These demands were settled on 7th August 1964 and the Tribunal passed an award in terms of the Settlement (Annexure IV to the writ petition), changing the structure of the dearness allowance but retaining the maximum at Rs. 270.