HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are directed against a common decision of the learned Single Judge by which three writ petitions namely Writ Petition Nos. 864 of 1986, 865 of 1986 and 1224 of 1986, have been disposed of. Appeal No. 1606 of 1988 is filed by Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha on behalf of the workmen working in its Head Office and Bombay Branch of the Company; whereas Appeal No. 1607 of 1988 is filed by Hindustan Lever Employees Union on behalf of the workers working in the Sewree Factory of the Company. Appeal No. 151 of 1988 is filed by the Company. The workmen involved in all these proceedings are the members of the clerical and technical staff. It has also to be mentioned that in view of an earlier settlement between the clerical and technical staff working in the Andheri Research Centre of the Company and the Company, the service conditions applicable to the staff in the Sewree Factory become automatically applicable to the staff in the Andheri Research Centre and hence the present proceedings would also indirectly cover the clerical and technical staff working in the Andheri Research Centre of the company. Thus the present proceedings concern about 500 workmen. Out of them about 200 belong to the clerical grades and 300 to the technical grades.

(2.) IT is also necessary to state at the outset that both the clerical and technical staff of the Company is classified in four Categories each as C-1 to C-4 and T-1 to T-4 respectively and they carry different scales of pay. Although, both the clerical and the technical staff discharge more or less similar duties, the clerical staff works for 36 hours a week, whereas the technical staff so called works for 48 hours a week. This, we understand, is the only material difference between the two. The distinction between the two is not material for the decision in the present proceedings and we have mentioned it only to complete the record.

(3.) THE present proceedings have arisen out of five references made to the Industrial Tribunal-three under section 10 (2) and two under section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Reference No. 123 of 1977 and Reference No. 215 of 1969 both under section 10 (2) of the Act at the instance of the Union and Sabha respectively, included general demands, and also the demand of the Company for placing a ceiling on dearness allowance. Reference No. 91 of 1984, at the instance of the Union, which was also under section 10 (2) of the Act, included demands of house rent allowance and leave travel allowance; whereas Reference No. 92 of 1984 under section 10 (1) (d) of the act, again at the instance of the Union, included demands for special allowance, social security allowance and ad hoc allowance. Reference No. 43 of 198 under section 10 (1) (d) of the Act and at the instance of the Sabha, included demands pertaining to house rent allowance, leave travel allowance, special allowance, social security allowance and ad hoc allowance.