YAMUNA MILLS CO LTD Vs. MAJOOR MAHAJAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications which are both by the Shri Yamuna Mills Co. Ltd., Baroda raise a somewhat important question of law regulating the relations between an employer and his employees. The question, shortly stated, is what precisely is the effect on these relations by the termination of a registered agreement or a settlement or an award by a requisite notice under the provisions of Section 116 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

(2.) A few facts which are material may be stated. The relations between the petitioner-mills and its employees were governed by an award made by C. N. Patel, J. of Baroda on 30th July 1949. The award was to remain in force for a period of six months. On 13th April 1950 the representative union of the employees gave a notice of change under Section 42 (2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and on 6th July 1950 the matter was referred to the Industrial Court, the dispute relating inter alia to wage scales and gratuity, which are the matters with which we are concerned on these petitions. On 30th August 1951 a consent award was published. An application for modification oi this award under Section 116-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act was made by the Union as welt as by the Mills and the award was in some respects modified on 13th December. 1954. Thereafter on 24th February 1955 the Mills gave notice under Section 116 (1) to terminate the award; and by virtue of the provisions of that section on the expiry of the period of two months from the date of the notice "the award shall cease to have effect". On 14th March 1955 the Registrar called upon the union to lodge objections, if any, and after hearing both the parties, on 1st October 1955 he registered the termination of the award. Now, under the award which had been so terminated the employees concerned were entitled to an increment in their wages from the month of December 1955 which would have become payable in January 1956. One of the employees, who is concerned fn one of these two petitions, was also entitled to a gratuity upon retirement. The Mills, after termination of the award, paid to the employees concerned the wages that they were actually drawing at the time of such termination and they refused to pay the increase in wages that would have been due under the award for December 1955 and in respect of the clerk Chunilal Hirachand who was discharged on 31st December 1955, they refused to pay him gratuity The First Labour Court, Ahmedabad, directed the Mills company to withdraw the illegal change and pay arrears of salary to clerks who were not given increments in December 1955--the award related to the clerical staff only--and gratuity to Shri Chunilal Hirachand. Against this order of the First Labour Court there were two appeals which were heard together by a Full Bench of the Industrial Court which dismissed the appeals and directed the company to pay gratuity to Shri Chunilal Hirachand and arrears of salary to clerks who were not given increments in December 1955. It is against this decision of the Industrial Court that these two petitions have been presented and it is urged by Mr. Patel on behalf of the petitioners that the Industrial Court has erred in law in coming to the conclusion which it did. Mr. Patel's contention on these petitions, shortly stated, is that when the award was terminated and the termination became effective, the award ceased to have effect for all purposes and the clerical staff was not entitled to the wage scale under which they would have got an increment in December 1955 under the Award, nor was the employee Chunilal entitled to a gratuity upon retirement which he would have been entitled to if the award was in operation and effective.

(3.) Now, in order to determine this question which is of very great importance to industrial relations, it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and to visualise what is the position brought about when an award becomes effective and what is the position when the award lapses or is terminated. Now, of course it is a matter of common knowledge --and it need not even be stated --that the object of the Act is to regulate the relations between the employers and the employees and naturally therefore, in the main, the Act deals with what are called "Industrial matters". "Industrial Matter" is defined in Section 3 (18) in very wide terms as including in its scope --and this I say without reproducing the definition --every conceivable matter that would affect the relations between the employers and employees. Then industrial matters are specified in three Schedules to the Act being Schedules I, II and III and they are dealt with, as I will presently point out, by the provisions of the Act somewhat separately and differently.