INDIA RADIATORS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute before the Tribunal was regarding the payment of wages for the lock-out period which was from 22.10. 1986 to 18.11. 1986. That lock-out was declared by the employer on the ground that the workmen had gone on go-slow and there was a fall in the production and further that such action on the part of the workmen was also in contravention of an incentive scheme which inter alia required that the workmen". . . . . . . . should not resort to any direct action like not working for incentive, before the failure of mutual discussion". It was the case of the employer, and that case was not disbelieved that mutual discussion was in progress at the time the workmen decided to reduce the level of production, and that, some time after the lock-out was declared, the disputes which had led to the go-slow and the subsequent lock-out was in fact resolved amicably. While so amicably resolving the dispute which concerned bonus and also general demands it was agreed that the question of wages for lock-out period would be referred for adjudication. That is how the Tribunal was required to consider the dispute.

(2.) THE case for the workmen was that though they were in fact giving a much higher level of production before the go-slow, they reduced it on 17.10. 1986 such a reduction was still not below the norm which had been agreed between the management and the workmen under an incentive scheme, and that, all that the workmen had done was to decline to give an incentive production and work over time. The workmen had, therefore, contended that there was no go-slow, but only that the workmen gave the minimum level of production and that cannot be regarded as amounting to breach of the terms of the incentive scheme.

(3.) THE object of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 is to provide a machinery for the peaceful resolution of differences between the management and workmen so that even during the currency of the dispute, the work of the industry goes on unhampered and that the levels of production are not brought down by reason of the disputes for resolving which provision is made in the Act by way of settlement by way of mutual negotiations, through conciliation, as also the resolution of disputes through the machinery of arbitration and ultimately by adjudication. The very object of establishing industry is to produce the goods of services and the joint effort of management and labour in the organised industry is aimed at maintaining a level of production which at the best of times should be the optimal level having regard to the resources available and the conditions of the market in which such goods and services are bought or sold. Declining to maintain the higher level of production is, therefore, not a part of the role assigned either to the management, or workmen as a lever in bargaining with each other. The incentive scheme in this case did require the maintenance of a level of production which had taken note of what the workmen was capable of doing and which they admittedly were doing by ensuring the higher level of production which they were giving prior to their own decision voluntarily taken to slow down the production.