SIC IDDLE SAWYER LIMITED A DEEMED PUBLIC LTD Vs. CHEMICAL EMPLOYEES UNION AND SHRI T M MANTRI MEMBER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the Petitioners impugns the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 29. 1. 1999 in Reference (TT) No. 31 of 1999. This award is in respect of general demands such as payscales to be paid, classification, service increments, Dearness Allowances, Leave, etc. payable to the workmen employed in the Administrative section of the Petitioner-Company and the workmen employed in the factory. The Award has been principally assailed on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the principles as delineated by the Apex Court in the matter of wage fixation and that while considering the demands of the workmen, the Tribunal has ignored the principle of industry cum region and has not considered the total wage packet which would be payable to the workmen. The other contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Award has been made applicable from the date of the demand, that is, January 1994 and this has caused a tremendous burden on the Petitioner and that, therefore, the Award is required to be quashed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: A settlement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Union on 14. 7. 1990 which was to be in operation for a period of three years. This settlement expired on 31. 12. 1993 and the Union raised a fresh charter of demands on 5. 1. 1994. Since no settlement was arrived at, contrary to the usual practice of having a general demands settled between the parties inter se, the Union field a complaint under Item 5 of Schedule II against the Petitioner for refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 5. 11. 1996. Being aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner challenged the order in this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 102 of 1997. Although the order of the Industrial Court was set aside, this Court directed the appropriate government to make two separate reference for adjudication before the same Tribunal since there were demands raised by the Union as well as the Petitioner Company. Acting on these directions, a common reference was made on 31. 3. 1997 being Reference (TT) No. 31 of 1997. Evidence was led before the Industrial Tribunal. Documentary evidence in the form of information obtained from comparable concerns was also filed before the Tribunal by both the parties. According to the Petitioner, four concerns were comparable with the Petitioner, namely, M/s. Bio-Chem Pharmaceutical Industry Ltd. , M/s. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Pvt. Ltd. , M/s. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. , M/s. Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd. The Petitioner filed a statement showing how the service conditions in these concerns were comparable to the situation prevalent in the Petitioner's concern in respect of the demands raised by the Union. The Union, on the other hand, filed a comparable statement of 10 companies including that of Glaxo India Limited and Duphar Interfran Ltd. It would not be out of place to mention at the juncture that Glaxo India Ltd. took over the Petitioner-Company in January, 1997, that is, before their Reference was made. However, for the purposes of the pending dispute, it was shown as a separate entity and Glaxo India Ltd. held 100% shares of the Petitioner company. Evidence of some workmen was recorded on behalf of the Respondent-Union. The Respondent-Union also recorded the evidence of the personnel executive of Duphar Interfran Ltd. as, according to the Union, this was a concern which was very similar to the Petitioner's concern and, therefore, it was their contention that the conditions of the service of Duphar Interfran Ltd. (which in any event were less than what was demanded) should be granted to them. The Petitioner examined three witnesses from the concerns which according to them were comparable in order to bring on record the conditions of service prevalent in those companies. After assessing the entire record including both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal made an award on 29. 1. 1999. The Tribunal allowed some of the demands while rejecting the others. The Tribunal awarded a revision in the basic scale of pay, Dearness Allowance, Acting allowance, annual increments and certain other allowances while rejecting the demands of provident fund, classification, service increments, leave, bonus, accident compensation, internal promotions, leave bank, etc. as also certain allowances. The Tribunal also directed that the award was effective retrospectively from 1. 1. 1994 and the Petitioner was directed to pay arrears within four months.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by this award, the Petitioner impugned the same in the present Writ Petition. At the time of admission of the petition, the prayer made by the Petitioner for staying the award was rejected. While doing so, this Court directed the Petitioner to apply the arrears in two instalments within six months from the date when the Petition was admitted. This order was challenged by the Petitioner in appeal No. 854 of 1999 when the Division Bench directed the Petitioner to make payment of 50% of the amounts of arrears in terms of the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal and to give a bank guarantee for the remaining 50%. The Petitioner has complied with these orders.