MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL CARBON COMPANY Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of National Carbon Company (hereinafter called "the employer"), challenges the order of the learned single Judge dated July 21, 1997, in W. P. No. 10566 of 1988 whereby, he set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer/first Additional Labour Court, Madras, in Claim Petition No. 52 of 1984, dated October 27, 1987, and remanded the matter for fresh trial of the original claim petition. The Labour Court initially had dismissed the said claim petition filed by the respondents-workers herein. The said claim petition was under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming certain wages, which were held back by the employer. It was, inter alia, the case of the workers before the Labour Court that they were entitled to receive from the employer the personal pay in terms of a settlement dated February 9, 1988, under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, between the employer and the workers, that this personal pay was to be treated as basic wages for all purposes and that it could not be reduced. They pleaded that they were working as general factory workers prior to the settlement and even after the date of the settlement and thereafter, they were sought to be transferred to the engineering department and more particularly to group 6-IV thereof, which had the better wage rate. It is their case that while fixing their pay in this new category of engineering department where they were transferred, the employer altered the same and reduced the personal pay, they contended that because of the illegal reduction of the personal pay, they suffered a loss which was calculated in terms of each of the respondent and further prayed that the amounts of the loss caused due to the illegal reduction of the personal pay were liable to be paid to them. According to them, the said amounts were crystallised in their favour because of the settlement and as such there was no question of the reduction.

(2.) THE employer filed a counter-statement and pointed out that the service conditions of the workmen were governed by the long-term settlement. It is pointed out by the employer that prior to 1978 there were two categories, viz. , general factory workmen and the workmen working in engineering department. It was pointed out further that the general factory workmen were grouped in one wage group whereas the engineering department was grouped in four wage groups. The basic wages of workmen consisted of a starting basic wage pertaining to his wage group plus service benefits which was the total sum of the annual increments and service weightage. Besides the basic wages, the general factory workmen were also entitled to the job premium, which was dependable on the work done by the general factory workers, but was fixed in case of engineering workmen. Their further case is that prior to 1978 there were three elements in the wages, viz. , starting basic wage, service benefits and job premium.

(3.) ACCORDING to the employer, it was a general practice that whenever a general factory workman was shifted to the engineering department, on being selected, he used to be given training and he was given three additional increments in his existing scale and then the total pay received by a workman after adding three increments was to be redistributed at the time of making a fitment of such workers in the engineering scales. In short, the employer pleaded that a promotion of a general factory worker to the engineering department earned only three increments to him, to his existing emoluments as general factory worker and nothing more and such final figure was redistributed for the purposes of his fitment in the new scale. It is the further case of the employer that after the settlement dated February 9, 1978, the practice of paying job premium was discontinued. Instead, the basic wages were increased and new scales created taking into consideration the new rates by which the workers were to be paid. The employer further pleaded that the concerned workman was thereafter fitted in the new scales and his salary was distributed for the purpose of fitment in the following three factors, they being, (1) new starting basic as per the agreement; (2) service benefits at the same rate as before; and (3) the remainder, if any, as personal pay. The employer has admitted that each of the worker, whose pay fixation was made after the 1978 settlement, earned the basic wages as per the settlement and in addition to it, had the service benefit which included the amount of increments earned by him and yet, his erstwhile pay being more than the one which was fixed after the settlement, such worker was left with some remainder which was treated as personal pay. In paragraph 8 of the counter-statement, the said personal pay of each of the respondent herein has been shown. The case of the employer, therefore, is that if these workers were shifted to the engineering department, the total pay which consisted of basic pay plus service benefit plus personal pay was added with three increments and then such figure was distributed on the basis of the scales made available in the engineering department and it was for that reason, it was necessary to make an adjustment in the personal pay. In short, the contention was that the personal pay was not an independent component but could be interfered with, considering the total emolument earned by the worker owing to the addition of three increments on his promotion to the engineering category. The employer, therefore, denied that there was any personal pay to which the workers were entitled. Apart from this, the employer contended by way of preliminary objection that this question could not be raised by a claim petition under Section 33-C (2) and could be gone into only by reference before the Labour Court in the proper proceedings, as this amounted to an industrial dispute.