WORKMEN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A brief background of the dispute is required to be noticed. The continuing dispute is between the Management of addison Paints & Chemicals Limited and some of its employees (hereinafter referred to as the Management and the employees respectively ). Prior to 1973, the employees were performing duties as clerks, chemists, stenos, etc. , and were being paid wages consisting of basic pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, etc. . In April, 1973 such employees were paid consolidated payment of wages on the basis of contracts between the management and the concerned employees. However, a dispute arose which was ultimately referred by the government to the Industrial Tribunal on 2. 11. 1984 by G. O. Ms. No. 2313. The said g. O. was challenged by the management in W. P. No. 12729 of 1984. Even though such writ petition was admitted, no stay had been granted and the Tribunal proceeded to consider the matter. Even though 22 questions were referred for adjudication, for the purpose of the present writ petitions only Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 6 being relevant, are quoted hereunder: - Issue No. 2. Whether the demand for payment of dearness allowance based on cost of living index is justified, if so to fix the rate and date from which it should be given effect to. Issue No. 3. Whether the demand for fixation of scales of pay for various categories of assistants is justified, if so to fix (a) scales of pay (b) manner of fitment, and (c) the date from which it should be given effect. Issue No. 6. Whether the demand for payment of House Rent allowance is justified, if so to fix the rate and the date from which it should be given effect to.

(2.) RELATING to issue No. 3, the Tribunal by award dated 29. 12. 1986 granted an increase of Rs. 125/- per month by way of additional sum to be paid with effect from 1. 4. 1986, if the concerned workers have not received the same earlier. All other issues were also decided by the Tribunal. W. P. No. 3419 of 1987 was filed on behalf of the employees by the Association challenging the award so far as it went against their contentions, whereas the management filed W. P. No. 1679 of 1989 challenging G. O. Ms. No. 128 dated 13. 1. 1989, which related to non-employment of one Sri E. D. Arumugam. All the three writ petitions, namely W. P. No. 12729/84, 3419/87 and 1679/89 were disposed of by common judgment dated 8. 4. 1992. Learned single Judge held that W. P. No. 12729/84 had become infructuous. In W. P. No. 3419 of 1987, the learned single Judge quashed the award relating to issue Nos. 2,3 and 6 and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Association, however, filed w. A. No. 787 of 1992 challenging that part of the order of the learned single judge rejecting the claim of certain other demands. The management filed w. A. No. 802 of 1992 challenging the order of remand relating to the issues 2,3 and 6 concerning the fixation of basic wages, dearness allowance and house rent allowance. The writ appeals were admitted, but no stay had been granted. In course of time, a fresh award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 31. 10. 1992 wherein it was held that the contracts under which the set of workmen in the category called Junior Management Assistant (In short JMA) came to be governed was illegal and unenforceable with effect from 1. 11. 1984 and payment of dearness allowance to all the concerned workmen should be made by the management at the usual rate and formula applicable to Madras City with effect from 1. 11. 1984. In respect of Issue No. 3, the Tribunal held that in the place of consolidated wages, the workmen should be categorized into certain designations with certain scale of pay as indicated by the Tribunal. Such direction was made effective from 1. 11. 1984. The Tribunal while abolishing JMA system with effect from 1. 11. 1984 made it clear that those JMAs, who accepted further promotion were free to retain the promotional post by rejecting the relief granted under the award, but if they intend to avail the benefits of the award they should not retain the promotional post.

(3.) AFTER the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, the Tribunal again took up the exercise and passed an award which was to the liking of neither the management nor the employees and W. P. No. 820 of 1995 and w. P. No. 12389 of 1995 came to be filed by the management and the employees respectively.