ARUNA MILLS LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a public limited company running a cotton textile mill at Ahmedabad. In 1948 the industrial court made an award known as the Standardization award, by which the wages of all employees, including assistant stampers, but excluding clerks, were fixed. In 1949 the industrial court made another award fixing the wages of clerks. Subsequently, on 22 June 1949 there was an agreement between the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, which is a representative union, and the Ahmedabad Millowner's' Association by which the wages of clerks were revised. Respondents 6 to 11 in this petition, who are the only contesting respondents and to whom I will hereafter refer as the respondents, are employed as assistant stampers in the mill run by the petitioner. Since 1948, they were being paid wages fixed for assistant stampers by the Standardization award. On 20 March 1956, respondent 6 through a union, wrote a letter Ex. 19 to the petitioner. In Para. 5 of that letter he stated that although the duties performed by him were of a clerical nature since seven years', he was not being paid wages in accordance with the agreement arrived at in 1949, by which the wages of clerks were revised. He also stated that the nature of his work had been changed after he had made a complaint about proper wages not being paid to him to the manager. The petitioner replied to respondent 6 on 17 April 1956, and in its reply it denied that respondent 6 was a clerk or that he was entitled to the wages of a clerk. On 20 April 1956 the petitioner made an application to the labour court, pupating to be an application under Ss. 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, in which they asked for an interpretation of the Standardization award and the agreement regarding clerks arrived at in 1949 and for a decision on the question whether the respondents and one other person Gangadas, who was also working as an assistant stampers, were entitled to be benefits of the agreement regarding clerks arrived at on 22 June 1949. The respondents contended that the application was not maintainable, as the petitioner was not entitled to approach the labour court under S. 78 of the Act. This contention was accepted by the labour court, which accordingly dismissed the application made by the petitioner. On appeal by the petitioner, the industrial court confirmed the decision of the labour court. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present special civil application, in which the petitioner has prayed that the orders passed by the labour court and the industrial court should be set aside and that the labour court should be asked to decide the application made to it by the petitioner on merits.

(2.) The relevant part of S. 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act provides as follows :

(3.) The explanation to this section provides that a dispute falling under Clause (a) of Para. A of Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have arisen, if within the period prescribed under the provision to Sub-section (4) of S. 42 no agreement is arrived at in respect of an order, matter or change referred to in the said proviso. Sub-section (4) of S. 42 provides that an employee desiring a change in respect of (iii) an industrial matter specified in Sch. III shall make an application to the labour court : provided that no such application shall lie unless the employee has in the prescribed manner approached the employer with a request for the change and no agreement has been arrived at in respect of the charge within the prescribed period. Item (5) in Sch. III to the Act is as follows : "Construction and interpretation of awards, agreements and settlements." Reading these provisions together, it is clear that a labour court has power to decide disputes relating to the construction and interpretation of awards and agreements. In view of the explanation to S. 78, such an industrial dispute with regard to the construction of an award and/or agreement shall be deemed to have arisen. If, after an employee has requested the employer for a change, no agreement is arrived at between the parties in respect of that matter within the prescribed period.