CALTEX INDIA LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Caltex (India), Ltd. , Cochin Terminal, Ernakulam, to reverse the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing O. P. No. 489 of 1957. The respondents in the appeal are the industrial Tribunal No. 2, Ernakulam, the workmen of the appellant-company represented by the President, Petroleum Workers' Union, Ernakulam, and the State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Labour and Local Administration Department.

(2.) THE respondent 2 union made a charter of demands containing 17 heads on 10 September 1955 on the appellant-company and as a consequence of this an industrial dispute arose between the workers and the management of the appellant-company. There was a reference of this dispute on 31 August 1956 to the respondent 1 tribunal, by the appropriate Government, the respondent 3 before us. The tribunal passed an award on 12 October 1957, which was duly published in the Gazette dated 5 November 1957 and became enforceable on 5 December of the same year. Several of the heads of disputes were settled between the parties and only those heads covered by issues 6, 7, 13 and 17 remained without settlement at the time of the filing of the writ petition, out of which the present appeal arises. The applicant company filed O. P. No. 489 of 1957 seeking to quash that portion of the award covered by the said four issues. Since the filing of the writ petition the parties had compromised their differences further and filed an agreement dated 30 January 1958 into Court, the only disputes remaining further to be investigated in the writ petition being the disputes covered by issues 7 and 17. Since the dispute in the appeal centres round these two issues we would extract them below: Issue 7. ?should work on Saturdays be limited to five hours between 8 a. m. and 1 p. m. ? Issue 17. ?should the benefits awarded take effect from 1 January 1953? Incidentally reference will have to be made to issue 6 also which reads: issue 6. ?what should be the rate of overtime allowance for workmen not covered by the Factories Act? The tribunal answered issue 6 as follows: All monthly paid workmen like spays, tallymen, drivers, cleaners, barge crew, etc. , whether covered by Factories Act or not covered by Factories Act: Sundays--For work between 8 a. m. and 5 p. m.--One compensatory day off only; no cash payment. On week days--Does not arise as the workmen are on eight-hour shifts. Saturday afternoon--Three hours' overtime at the rate of double basic wages only. Sundays--Compensatory off only; no cash overtime allowance. Festival holidays--Double basic wages only. On issue 7 the tribunal held that, since in almost all the industrial concerns in and around Ernakulam Saturday afternoon being a holiday, in conformity with such practice obtaining in other industrial institutions, there would be no work in the appellant-company also from 1 p. m. on Saturdays. Coming to issue 17, the tribunal gave retrospective effect to the award from 10 October 1955; that being the date of the demand made by the union. Under this issue the tribunal directed that the arrears in basis wages, duty and overtime allowances and allowance for Saturday afternoon work at overtime rates would be calculated from 10 October 1955. As we have already observed, the dispute before the learned single Judge was only regarding the retrospective operation of the award covered by issue 17 in relation to the point covered by issue 7. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no question of want of jurisdiction when the tribunal gave retrospective effect, for, issue 17 had left that question of retrospectively to the tribunal's decision. The appellant-company questions the correctness of this decision in the present appeal.

(3.) AT the outset we would point out that the only issue which makes any reference to overtime allowance is issue 6 and that relates only to workmen not covered by the Factories Act. Obviously the tribunal has gone wrong in making its award on this point applicable to workmen covered by the Factories Act also. We are told at the bar by the learned Counsel of the appellant-company that at the time of the award 73 out of 95 workmen were covered by the Factories Act and this is not disputed by the learned advocate of the union. An attempt has been made at the time of arguments by the learned advocate of the union and the learned Government Pleader to support the award of the tribunal on issue 17 in relation to issue 7 by a reference to issue 6 as issue 6 relates to overtime allowance. We are of the opinion that issue 6 is not capable of thus being pressed into service to support the award of compensation for overtime work under issue 7. A mere reading of issues 6 and 7 will make our meaning clear and therefore we proceed to consider issues 7 and 17 independently of issue 6.