SWAN MILLS LTD Vs. S V KOTNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company is challenging the legality of the order dated Dec.27, 1982 passed by the Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court at Bombay in group of applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the applicant workers are entitled to claim four days earned wages and proportionate increase in dearness allowance per month. The Labour Court also held that the permanent employees of the petitioner Mills from Watch & Ward department are entitled to claim four days wages per year as difference of leave wages. The Labour Court directed the petitioner Mills to file statement showing the amounts due to each of the applicant and thereafter pay the same within a certain stipulated period and failure to do so would make the petitioner Mills liable to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The facts giving rise to passing of this order are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the Petitioner Mills.

(2.) The petitioners are an incorporated Company and own and run a textile mill at Bombay. The textile mill is covered by provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh is a representative and approved union under the provisions of that Act for the textile industry for the local area of Greater Bombay. The petitioners are members of the employers' association, known as Mill Owners Association, Bombay, and the said Association is also rec-ognised by the Government under the provisions of Section 27 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Sangh gave a notice of change dated July 26, 1971 under Section 42 of the B.I.R. Act to the Association. By the said notice the Sangh made demands pertaining to revision of wages and otherrl service conditions of the members of the Ward & Watch staff and office peons employed by the petitioners and other members of the Association. The Conciliation Officer appointed under the provisions of the B.I.R. Act admitted the dispute arising out of the change notice in conciliation and at the end of the proceedings issued a certificate certifying that the conciliation proceedings have ended without any settlement. Thereafter the Sangh referred the dispute to the Industrial Court for arbitration under Section 73-A of the B.I.R. Act. The Association resisted the proceedings claiming that the demand in respect of revision of wages was not maintainable due to a subsisting settlement and that objection was upheld by the Industrial Court and direction was given for consideration of the remaining demands. The Sangh preferred a writ petition in this Court challenging the preliminary findings recorded by the Industrial Court in respect of demand for revision of pay. During the pendency of that petition the parties arrived at settlement of all the disputes and the settlement dated April 26, 1974 was filed before the Industrial Court and an award dated May 23, 1974 was passed in pursuance of the agreement. The Mills Association thereafter sent a circular to its members communicating the passing of the award and the mode of its implementation. The circular, inter alia, recites that the same was issued with concurrence of the Sangh.

(3.) In the month of November 1975; the members of the Watch and Ward staff of the petitioners filed an application in the Industrial Court, inter alia, complaining about the improper implementation of the agreement and the consent award passed in pursuance thereof. The grievances of the workers were that though the members of Watch and Ward Staff were treated as monthly rated employees under the consent award they were paid wages only for 26 days in a month instead of 30 days as per the calender month. The application was withdrawn after the Association raised objection to the maintainability of the same. Thereafter the workers filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in that application it was inter alia claimed that the members of the Watch and Ward Staff were treated as monthly rated employees with effect from January 1, 1974 in pursuance of the consent terms and the award are entitled to wages for 31 days but are paid only for 26 days. The applicants complained that they have been paid less wages for four days in every month and therefore the petitioners are liable to pay the said sum. The workers also claimed that they should get four days leave wages per month which they were getting less by calculating their wages for one month on the basis of 26 days instead of 30. The workers also demanded double wages for paid festival holidays which were deprived of The petitioners resisted the proceedings claiming that the benefit sought by the workers is not an existing benefit and is not provided by the settlement and the consent award passed in pursuance thereof. The petitioners also claim that the calculation of monthly wages are correct and the claim that wages were fixed for 26 days in a month only is not correct. The petitioners denied their liability to pay four days wages per month as claimed by the workers. The other claims made by the workers were also denied.