WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award dated 28th April, 2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, in the matter of general demands such as wage scales, dearness allowance, leave and allowance, etc. is sought to be challenged on the grounds of non application of industry-cum-region formula, non-consideration of issue of financial burden upon the employer, improper exercise of jurisdiction in casting the burden of proof upon the petitioner company, acceptance and approval of the demands of the employees without any proof and/or basis and without application of mind and unjustifiable retrospective enforcement of revision of wages ignoring inordinate delay in pursuing the matter by the employees.

(2.) THE petitioner-company is engaged in several business activities like establishment of sugar plants, cement plants, industrial boiler, gear boxes, etc. , having its factories at Walchandnagar, Satara in Maharashtra and at dharwad in Karnataka with its Head Quarters at Mumbai. The total pay packet of the last paid employee of the petitioner at the head office in April, 1992 was Rs. 3347/- against the minimum wage of Rs. 1123/- for skilled employees and the same rose to Rs. 6451. 71 ps. in December, 1999 as against the minimum wage of Rs. 2285/ -. The respondent No. 1 is the Union representing the employees at the head office. In the meeting between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 held on 25th July, 1990, the MOU was drawn and executed by the parties agreeing to have a settlement to be drawn and executed for the period expiring on 31st March, 1992 and further that any settlement thereafter to be made shall be effective from 1st April, 1992. Consequently, the settlement was arrived at on 13th September, 1990, which expired on 31st March, 1992. By letter dated 16th March, 1992, the respondent No. 1 submitted fresh charter of demand incorporating 21 demands. By letter dated 7th April, 1997, the respondent No. 1 approached the Commissioner of labour for conciliation proceedings relating to the said demands. The conciliation officer submitted his failure report on 29th August, 1997 and thereafter, the matter was referred for adjudication by Reference (II) No. 50 of 1998 and further by corrigendum dated 5th August, 1998. While Shri amaral Mukherjee, Vice Chairman of the Union, filed affidavit in support of the employees, the case of the company was sought to be established by filing affidavit of Shri Mohanlal Hiralal Purwat, General Manager (Accounts)and Shri Vithal Tukaram Nanaware, Chief Personnel Manager of the company. All deponents were cross-examined by their adversaries. It is to be noted that the demand in the year 1992 was in relation to 24 employees and by the time the reference was being considered about 16 employees had either retired or resigned or expired, leaving about 8 employees. Further, by the time the impugned award was declared, two more employees ceased to be in employment of the company leaving only six employees.

(3.) THE Constitution of India discloses deep concern for the welfare of the workers, and the same is clearly highlighted by the Directives Principles embodied in the Articles 42 and 43. Obviously, the provisions aim at eliminating inequality in income and the status and standard of life and to provide a decent standard of life to all working people and to ensure security to working class. It was observed in (D. S. Nakara and others v. Union of India), reported in A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 130 that ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . the less equipped person shall be assured a decent minimum standard of life and exploitation in any form shall be eschewed. There will be equitable distinction of national cake and the worst of shall be treated in such a manner as to push them up the ladder. " It was held by the Apex Court in (Express Newspapers (Put.) Ltd. and another v The Union of India), reported in A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 578, the Article 43 sets out the ideal to which our Social Welfare State has to approximate in an attempt to ameliorate the living conditions of the workers, A living wage to a worker is therefore a constitutional expectancy explicit from the directive principles.