PUNJAB DISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ or order quashing an award dated 28 December 1960, given by the presiding officer of the industrial tribunal, Punjab, Patiala. The petition is being opposed by the Distillery Mazdoor Union, Khasa.

(2.) THE Punjab Distilling Industries, Ltd. , Khasa, the petitioner, is a public company and in pursuance of the provisions of Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Governor of Punjab referred the following disputes between the petitioner-company and its workmen to the presiding officer of the industrial tribunal by order dated 30 July 1960: (1) Whether the grades and scales of pay be fixed after placing the workmen in proper categories? If so, with what details ? (2) Whether the dearness allowance allowed to the workmen be linked with the price index? If be, the manner in which it should be done ? It is only the first matter of reference which arises in this petition.

(3.) ON a notice from the tribunal, the workmen submitted their written statement of claim on behalf of the Distillery Mazdoor Union on 14th August 1960. The company also submitted its written statement together with documents on which it had relied on 18 August 1960. Copies of the two written statements are attached with this petition as annexures B and C. Respondent 2 gave his award on 26 December 1960, and it was published in the official gazette on 13 January 1961. The grades of the workmen have been fixed after making three categories. The scales of wages fixed for each category are indicated below: (1) Skilled. . . Rs. 100-4-140/5-165 (2) Semi-skilled. . . Rs. 70-2-90/3-105 (3) Unskilled. . . Rs. 60-2-80/3-95 It was ordered that the company shall pay to the workmen in accordance with the above scales from 1 August 1960. Demand 2 was not pressed by the union and was, therefore, dismissed. The legality of the award has been challenged on two grounds: firstly that it was beyond the scope of reference and, secondly, that it contains errors apparent on the face of the record. It is, therefore, prayed that the award should be quashed. The main objections of the petitioners to the award are (1) That the president of the tribunal had exceeded his jurisdiction in fixing the grade of unskilled workmen at Rs. 60-2-80-3-95 which is in excess of the demand made for them by the union, as for the unskilled workmen they had demanded a grade of Rs. 60-1-70. (2) The company felt aggrieved by the order of the tribunal in so far as it directed that the workmen should be paid in accordance with the scales fixed by it with effect from 1 August 1960, and thus the award was being given retrospective effect. Moreover, the workmen had not asked for retrospective operation of the award with effect from 1 August 1960. (3) That the conclusion of the tribunal that the company could afford to bear the extra financial burden was not deducible on the record. Annexure A relied upon by the tribunal had been wrongly construed and the tribunal had not taken into consideration that a fresh burden of Rs. 48,000 per year had been imposed upon the company which it could not bear. (4) It was next urged that the scales had been fixed for a number of workmen engaged by the company on daily-wage basis. This, it was submitted, was not justified, because the company could not be compelled to pay them on monthly basis which was against the terms of their employment and furthermore, the respondent was not invited to adjudicate with respect to the workmen engaged on daily wage basis. (5) It was alleged that it was the duty of the workmen to prove justification or rise in their wages by showing a similar rise in the case of workmen in the other distilleries in the Punjab. The tribunal should not have justified the increase on the ground that the company had omitted to furnish proof of the wages given to each workman by the other two distilleries. This reasoning of the tribunal was assailed on the ground that the burden of proof of negative was erroneously placed upon the company. (6) The basis on the strength of which the wages of workmen in other factories engaged in different trades was also questioned.