ESSOR ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the proprietor of an engineering firm called the Essor Engineering Works. In 1950 disputes having arisen between various engineering businesses in the city on the one hand and the employees on the other, a reference was made to the industrial tribunal under Section 10 (2a) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it then stood. On 18 July 1950 Mr. Ramayya Pantulu who constituted the industrial tribunal, passed an award in the course of which he dealt with various matters. On the question of minimum wage he stated: I do not propose to determine the wages of workers other than unskilled workers a there are no adequate materials upon which it can be done.

(2.) HE, therefore, confined his adjudication on this part of the case to this point, namely, the wages that should be paid to the lowest category Of unskilled worker and he fixed that at Rs. 26 per mensem for 26 days (see Paras. 43 and 53 of the award ). Dealing with the question of gratuity and provident fund, the award stated: It is however essential that the workers should have at least one retirement benefit scheme and one may choose the provident fund scheme which is the more necessary and urgent. I would direct that if the Government scheme is not ready to be introduced by 1 January 1951, the management should prepare a provident fund scheme on the basis of an equal contribution of 6 1/4 per cent of basic wage in consultation with the workers or their representatives. Difference of opinion on any point of detail will be settled by the Commissioner of Labour or ultimately by an industrial tribunal. This award pronounced on 18 July 1950 was actually published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 8 August 1960. One thing that has to be mentioned here is that the award does not in terms deal with apprentices. On 27 February 1951 the Government issued a memorandum No. 2951 P. 1/51-1, dated 27 February 1951, answering certain points raised by the Madras Provincial Foundry, Smithy and General Engineering Workers' Union. That memorandum has been described as a clarification by the Government of the award made by Mr. Ramayya Pantulu on 18 July 1950. In Para. 3 of the memorandum the Government stated: In the absence of any direction in the award, specifying the date from which the minimum wage of Rs. 26 for unskilled labour should be paid, it should be paid from 8 August 1950, the date of the publication of the award in the Gazette. By virtue of Section 19 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the award remained in operation by its own force for one year. On 30 October 1952 the union sent a notice to the petitioner terminating the award with effect from two months from the date on which the notice would reach the petitioner. The date of termination may therefore be taken to be 1 January 1953. After the award was terminated in this manner there was a second reference to arbitration and on 6 October 1953 Mr. Narasimham, who then constituted the industrial tribunal, pronounced his award. In that he went separately and specifically into the question of apprentices and gave this direction regarding them: But the apprentices in the present case shall be paid an allowance of 8 annas per day for the first year and of Re. 1 per day for the second year of their service, and if they are retained in service beyond the second year, they shall be treated as regular workmen and paid wages as per award in the Bombay Engineering Works according as they happen to be unskilled, semiskilled workmen.

(3.) IN the business of the petitioner, 24 persons, who have been impleaded as respondents 3 to 26 to this petition, were working. The case of the petitioner is that they were only apprentices. The labour officer, however, considered that they were unskilled labourers and on that basis he wrote on 8 September 1953 to the petitioner telling him that the workers had claimed arrears of wages at the rate specified in the award of Mr. Ramayya Pantulu, and requiring him to produce his wages register and provident fund register; and warning him that in default it would be assumed that the claim made by the workers was correct and that a report would be sent to Government for recovery of the amount under Section 20 of the Act.