HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are a group of three Petitions seeking to challenge the Award dated the 18th of december 1985 of Shri B. N. Dongre, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. The Award has adjudicated upon the demands of the Management and the Workers of M/s. Hindustan Lever limited, Bombay. It has conceded the demand of the Management for placing a ceiling on the dearness allowance on basic pay over Rs. 500/-10 It has granted certain demands of the workers such as revision of pay scales, grant of special allowance. Social Security Allowance and ad hoc allowance, demand for automatic promotion, etc. The first two Petitions are filed by workers and the third by the Management.

(2.) THE first question that can be taken up for consideration is in regard to the demand of the Management for creating a ceiling on the dearness allowance. The impugned Award has granted this demand and has placed a ceiling on the dearness allowance on basic pay over rs. 500/ -. Mr. Menon, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workers, strenuously 1 submitted that the learned Member of the industrial Tribunal has erred in granting the said demand of the Management. According to him, the workers were being paid dearness allowance on a sliding scale for over a decade. There was no compelling reason to have parted with this benefit which the workers were enjoying. If the workers could not be paid fair wages and if the prices of essential commodities have consistently been on the increase, there was no justification to place a ceiling on the dearness allowance. Mr. Menon placed reliance in the case of The monthly rated workmen of Indian hume Pipe Company Ltd. v. Indian Hume Pipe company Ltd. , Bombay, (1986-I-LLJ-520)wherein it was observed at pp. 528-530:

(3.) PLACING reliance on the aforesaid obser-vations in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. (supra) Mr. Menon strenuously urged that the learned Member of the Tribunal has seriously erred in granting this demand of the Management. It was not the case of the 2i management that there was financial stringency which the Company could not bear. No good reasons or compelling grounds had been advanced so as to justify the abolition of the slab of dearness allowance which had prevailed for over 25 years. He submitted that grant of this demand is illegal and liable to be quashed.