BURMAH SHELL AND STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO OF INDIA Vs. LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA MADRAS BENCH NOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the questions referred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, as an industrial dispute between the petitioner company and its employees, was the quantum of bonus payable to the workmen for 1952. The Workers' Union claimed that three categories of employees, the Depot Superintendent, the assistant Depot Superintendent and the lady Secretary, were also entitled to participate in the award of bonus as they were also "workmen" as defined by section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The company resisted that claim and pleaded that these three categories of employees were not workmen as defined by the Act, and that any claim on behalf of those employees would not be an industrial dispute" within the cognizance of the Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) THAT identical question arose for determination with reference to an industrial dispute, in 1951 in I. D. No. 2 of 1952, between the same parties, the company and the workers' Union. The Industrial Tribunal held then that these three categories of employees, the Depot superintendent, the Assistant Depot superintendent and the Lady Secretary, fell outside the scope of the definition of "workmen" in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Appellate Tribunal reversed that finding. The correctness of the decision of the appellate Tribunal was upheld by the High Court in W. P. No. 405 of 1953, preferred by the company under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari: Burma Shell Oil storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. , madras v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India (A) Sankara Pattar v. Ramanatha ayyar, 1954-2 Mad LJ 155 (B ). The appeal preferred against that decision in W. P. No. 405 of 1853 (A) is still pending in this court.

(3.) WITH reference to the claim of bonus for 1953, the company sought an opportunity to place all the evidence it had on record in support of its contention that these three categories of employees were not workmen as defined by the industrial Disputes Act. The plea of the Union, that the principle of res judicata should apply and that the company should not be permitted to re-open the question, was upheld by the Industrial Tribunal, and on appeal by the Labour appellate Tribunal.