# SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] MESSRS. SHALIMAR W'ORKS LIMITED v. THEIR \VORKMEN

- **Citation:** [1960] 1 S.C.R. 150
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals v. Nos. 317 & 318 of 1950
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-reports-1960-1-messrs-shalimar-w-orks-limited-v-their-vorkmen-1734
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Reinstate1nent-Pending adJUdiciitionIllegal strike by workmen-Management discharging workmen without permission of Tribunal--Reference, delayed and vague-Whether
tcorkmcn entitled to reinstatement on such reference.
On March 23, 1948, while certain disputes were under
adjudication the workmen pressed the same demands tpon the
company for immediate solution \\'ithout a\vaiting the a·vard of
the tribunal. The company refused to meet the demanis and
thereupvn the workmen went on an illegal sit-down strik,, The
company closed the works indefinitely and notified that all those
workmen who had resorted to the illegal strike were disoharged
from that date. On July 5 the company notified that the works
would open on July 6 and all old employees could apply for re.
engagement upto July 2r. A majority of them applied for being
retaken and all those who applied upto July 21 were takm but
those who applied after that date were refused. On Novem)er 18,
1953. the Governm.ent made a reference in respect >f the
reinstatenl(·nt of 250 old \vorkmen \vho had not heen rctaken.
Ko list of the 250 \\·orkmcn \Vas sent to the tribunal nor \\'<.S such
a list filed e\'en during the adjudication proceedings but after the
arguments on behalf of the company \Vere over a carclessly
pre pa red list of 220 persons was filed before the tribunal b' the
workmen on December 14, 1953· The Tribunal ordered reirntate-
.ment without specifying who were to be reinstated. It di:ected
the company to give a general notice notifying the strikers to
come and 'join their duties on a fixed date and to reinstatethose
who applied within the time allowed. On appeal, the labour
Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of reinstatement in Bspect
of r5 workmen only.
Held, that there \Vas no reason for ordering reinstaterrent of
any of the "'·orkmen on such a vague reference made afte: such
an unreasonable delay. It was reasonable that disputes hould
hl~ referred as soon as possible after they had arisen ant after
conciliation proceedings had failed, particularly in cases of vholesale discharge of workmen followed by fresh recruitmnt of
labour. Though the workmen were discharged duriig the
pendency of a dispute in Yiolation of s. 33 of the Inrustrial
Disputes Act, 1947• the remedy of the workmen was to apply
under s. 33-A of the Act; but that was not done. This ddect in
the discharge of the workmen could be i!(nored in the crcumstances of this case on account of the illegal strike, the faiure to
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
151
avail of the remedy under s. 33-A ancl the delay and vagueness
r959
of the reference which all show that the workmen were not
interested in reinstatement.
Shalimar Works
Limited.

## Text

1959
May 8
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)]
MESSRS. SHALIMAR W'ORKS LIMITED.
v.
THEIR \VORKMEN
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Reinstate1nent-Pending adJUdiciitionIllegal strike by workmen-Management discharging workmen without permission of Tribunal--Reference, delayed and vague-Whether
tcorkmcn entitled to reinstatement on such reference.
On March 23, 1948, while certain disputes were under
adjudication the workmen pressed the same demands tpon the
company for immediate solution \\'ithout a\vaiting the a·vard of
the tribunal. The company refused to meet the demanis and
thereupvn the workmen went on an illegal sit-down strik,, The
company closed the works indefinitely and notified that all those
workmen who had resorted to the illegal strike were disoharged
from that date. On July 5 the company notified that the works
would open on July 6 and all old employees could apply for re.
engagement upto July 2r. A majority of them applied for being
retaken and all those who applied upto July 21 were takm but
those who applied after that date were refused. On Novem)er 18,
1953. the Governm.ent made a reference in respect >f the
reinstatenl(·nt of 250 old \vorkmen \vho had not heen rctaken.
Ko list of the 250 \\·orkmcn \Vas sent to the tribunal nor \\'<.S such
a list filed e\'en during the adjudication proceedings but after the
arguments on behalf of the company \Vere over a carclessly
pre pa red list of 220 persons was filed before the tribunal b' the
workmen on December 14, 1953· The Tribunal ordered reirntate-
.ment without specifying who were to be reinstated. It di:ected
the company to give a general notice notifying the strikers to
come and 'join their duties on a fixed date and to reinstatethose
who applied within the time allowed. On appeal, the labour
Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of reinstatement in Bspect
of r5 workmen only.
Held, that there \Vas no reason for ordering reinstaterrent of
any of the "'·orkmen on such a vague reference made afte: such
an unreasonable delay. It was reasonable that disputes hould
hl~ referred as soon as possible after they had arisen ant after
conciliation proceedings had failed, particularly in cases of vholesale discharge of workmen followed by fresh recruitmnt of
labour. Though the workmen were discharged duriig the
pendency of a dispute in Yiolation of s. 33 of the Inrustrial
Disputes Act, 1947• the remedy of the workmen was to apply
under s. 33-A of the Act; but that was not done. This ddect in
the discharge of the workmen could be i!(nored in the crcumstances of this case on account of the illegal strike, the faiure to
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
151
avail of the remedy under s. 33-A ancl the delay and vagueness
r959
of the reference which all show that the workmen were not
interested in reinstatement.
Shalimar Works
Limited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeals
v.
Nos. 317 & 318 of 1950.
Their Workmen
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and
order dated the 29th June 1955 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta in Appeals Nos.
Cal. 61 and 81 of 1954.
N. C. Chatterjee, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghose,
for the appellants in C. A. No. 317 of 56 and respondent No. 1 in C. A. No. 318 of 56.
A. V. Viswanatha SaBtri, A. K. Dutt and B. P.
Maheshwari, for the appellants in C. A. No. 318 of 56
and respondents in C. A. No. 317 of 56.
1959. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
W ANCHOO J.-These are two appeals by special leave
Wanchoo J.
against the same decision of the Labour Appellate
Tribunal of India in a dispute between Messrs. Shalimar
Works Ltd., Howrah (hereinafter called the company)
and its workmen represented by two unions (hereinafter called the workmen).
Appeal No. 317 is by the
company while appeal No. 318 is by the workmen.
We shall dispose them of by one judgment.
There was a dispute between the company and its
workmen on a number of matters and it was referred
to the Sixth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication by
the Government of West Bengal.
Only two matters
now survive out of the many referred to the Tribunal,
namely, (1) profit sharing bonus and (2) reinstatement
of 250 old workmen.
We shall first deal with the question of profit sharing
bonus. It appears that the company had a profit
sharing bonus scheme in force on the following lines.
It provided that after making certain deductions, if the
remaining
profit
was between Rs. 1,50,000 and
Rs. 1,99,999, the workmen would be entitled to quarter
of a month's average basic pay as bonus.
When the
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
'959
remaining profit was between Rs. 2·00 lakhs and
Shalim:;- Works Rs. 2,49,9b99! the bonuWs hwent uhp ·to ha.If. of a mfionth's
Limited.
average as1c pay.
en t e remauung pro .t was
v.
between Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 2,99,999, the bonus was
Their Workmen to be three quarters of a month's avera.ge basic pay
and when the remaining profit was Rs. 3 lacs or more
Wanchoo J.
the bonus was to equal one month's basic pay. No
bonus was to be paid if the profit was less than
Rs. 1,50,000.
There were provisions that the full
bonus would be paid to a workmen who had attended
275 days in a year (inclusive of holidays arid leave
with pay) while those with less attendance were to be
paid proportionately with the condition that if the
attendance of any workman was less than 100 days
he would be entitled to no bonus.
The workmen
wanted this scheme to be revised and the main revision they desired was that the bonus should begin
with a profit of Rs. 25,000 after the usual deductions
when it would be one week's wages and should go on
increasing till it came to three months' wages for
profit above Rs. l lakh and upto Rs. 3 lakhs; thereafter
it should increase further at the rate of 21 days' wages
for each lakh over 3 Iakhs. This was opposed by the
company, though the 6ompany agreed to a change in
the quantum of bonus when profit after deductions
was Rs. 3 lakhs or above.
In the scheme in force,
the bonus was equal to one month's basic pay when
the profit was Rs. 3 Iakhs or above, with no further
increase whatsoever be the profits.
The company
agreed to revise this term and suggested that when
profit was-
(i) between Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs, bonus
should be four weeks' wages;
(ii) above Rs. 4 lakhs upto Rs. 5 lakhs, bonus
should be five weeks' wages.
(iii) above Rs. 5 lakhs, it should be six weeks'
wages
The Industrial Tribunal did not accept fully the
contentions of either party in this connection, though
it varied the scheme in force in certain particulars.
After the variation the scheme wo.s as below :-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
153
For remaining profit after the usual deductions -
(i) from Rs. 80,000 to
bonus at the rate of one
Rs. 1,99,999,
week's average basic
pay;
{ii) from Rs.2·00 lakhs to bonus at the rate of half
Rs. 2,49,999,
of a month's average
basic pay;
(iii) from Rs.2·50 lakhs to bonus !.\It the rate of threeRs. 2·99,999,
quarters of a month's
average basic pay;
{iv) from Rs. 3·00 lakhs to bonus at the rate of four
Rs. 4·00 lakhs,
weeks' average basic
(v) from above
Rs.4·00 lakhs up
to Rs. 5·00 lakhs
{vi) from above
Rs. 5·00 lakhs,
pay;
bonus at the rate of six
weeks' average basic
pay; and
bonus at the rate of two
months' average basic
pay.
The Industrial Tribunal also accepted 275 days'
attendance for earning full bonus and proportionate
bonus when the attendance fell below 275 days and
the minimum of 100 days' attendance for earning any
bonus at all. It also held that bonus for the years
1951 and 1952 should be paid at the existing rates
while revised rates should be applied from the year
1953 onwards.
Both parties appealed to the Labour Appellate
Tribunal against this revision. The company contended
that no greater revision than what it had a.greed to
should have been ordered. In the workmen's appeal
it was contended that the scheme put forward on
their behalf should have been accepted. They further
contended that the condition of minimum attendance
for 100 days should not have been laid down and that
the bonus for the years 1951 and 1952 should have
been awarded at the revised rates.
The Appellate Tribunal saw no reason to interfere
with the a.ward of the Industrial Tribunal in this
respect and dismissed the appeals with one modification, namely, it added that if in any year it was found
20
z959
SAalimar WorA1
Limiletl.
v.
Tlteir Worlimn
WancAooJ.
I959
Shalima,. Wo,.ks
Limited.
v.
Thei,. Wo,.kmen
Wanchoo J.
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
that the bonus worked out according to the award of
the Industrial Tribunal was less than profit bonus,
calculated according to the Full Bench formula
evolved in the Milt-Owners' Association, Bombay v. The
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoo-r Sangh, Bombay (1), the workmen would be entitled to bonus under the formula;
otherwise they would get bonus under the scheme as
modified by the Industrial Tribunal.
·
I
,
In the appeals before us, the company has attacked
the revision ordered by the Industrial Tribunal, which
was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, as also the
condition added by the latter; while the workmen
have attacked the scale fixed by the Industrial Tribunal
as also the order of payment of bonus for the years
1951 and 1952, according to the scheme in force before
the revision by the Indtistrial Tribunal, and the conditions as to attendance. Learned counsel for the parties,
however, agreed before us that the revision made by
the Industrial Tribunal was acceptable to both the
parties and that the condition laid down by the
Appellate Tribunal that where the bonus according
to the scheme is less than the bonus worked out
according to the Full Bench formula that formula
should be applied, should be deleted. In view of this
agreed statement, we delete the condition laid down
by the Appellate Tribunal and order that bonus
should be paid in accordance with the scheme a.a
revised by the Industrial Tribunal. Learned counsel
for the workmen, however, urged that the condition as
to minimum attendance of 100 days for entitlement
to any bonus at all and of minimum attendance of
275 days for entitlement to full bonus was arbitrary
and should be set aside. This condition has been
accepted by both the Tribunals and appears reasonable and we see no reason to interfere. It was further
contended that bonus for the .years 1951 and 1952
should have been ordered to be paid according to the
revised scheme. This contention was also negatived by
the two Tribunals and we see no reason to differ from
them. The two appeals therefore with respect to bonus
are dismissed subject to the modification given above.
(1) 1950 L.L.J. 1:147.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
155
We now come to the question relating to the term in
the reference as to the reinstatement of 250 old w.orkmen. It is necessary to state certain facts in this
connection. It appears that a Major Engineering
Tribunal was set up by the Government of West
Bengal in October 1947 to decide disputes between
major engineering firms and their workmen.' The
company as well as the workmen were parties to the
disputes which was pending before that tribunal. The
issues before that tribunal were of a very comprehensive nature and included all kinds of disputes that
could arise between employers and employees. While
that adjudication was pending the workmen suddenly
pressed certain demands upon the company for
immediate solution without awaiting the award of the
tribunal, even though the demands so pnt forward
were under adjudication. The company naturally
refused to meet the demands when they were under
investigation by the tribunal. Consequently, the work-·
men who had come to work on March 23, 1948, started
a. sit-down strike after they had entered the company's
premises. This strike continued from March 23 to 27,
and it was on March 27 that the workmen were
ejected from the premises by the police according to
the case of the company or were induced to leave the
premises by the. police according to the case of the
workmen. Anyhow, after· the workmen left the
premises on 27th, the company gave notice on that
day that the Works would be closed indefinitely.
Another notice was given by the company on April 6,
1948, in which it was notified that all those who had
resorted to illegal strike from March 23, 1948, would
be deemed to have been discharged from that date.
Thereafter no work was done till May 15, 1948. On that
date the company gave a notice that if sufficient.
suitable men applied for employment on or before
May 19, the works would be opened on a limited scale
from May 20. It seems, however, that nothing came
out of this notice. Eventually on July 5, the company
gave another notice to the effect that the works would
reopen on July 6, 1948, and all old employees could
apply, and if· re-engaged their pa.st services would
z959
Shalimar Works
Limiled.
v.
Their W orkm1n
Wamhoo J.
z959
Slualiniar Worh.s
Limited.
v.
Tluir Worknan
w-11oo J.
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
be counted and their conditions of service would be as
awarded by the Major Engineering Tribunal, which, it
seems, had given its award in the meantime. It was
also said in the notice that upto July 21, the company
would only consider engagement of former employees
and no fresh labour would be recruited till that date.
Thereafter the majority of the old workmen applied
for being retaken in service and everyone who applied
upto July 21 was re-engaged. Thereafter the company
refused to re-engage the old employees, a few of whom
are said to have applied in November and December,
1948, August, 1951,February, 1952 and January, 1953.
It appears that in November, 1949, the Assistant
Labour Commissioner was moved by one of the trade
unions about non-employment of 249 workmen. He
wrote to the company in that connection and it replied
that the workmen had been discharged for having
taken part in an illegal strike and it could not see its
way to re-employ them. For a Jong time nothing
seems to have happened thereafter till we come to
October 7, 1952, when the first reference was made
with respect to the.reinstatement of 250 old workmen.
The original reference was to the tribunal consisting of
Shri S.K. Niyogi. That gentleman went on retirement
before he could dispose of the reference and consequently another reference was made on November
18, 1953, to the present tribunal consisting of Shri
M.L. Chakraborty. No list of 250 workmen was sent
to the TribJJnal about whom it was to consider the
question of reinstatement. No list of these workmen
was filed even before the Industrial Tribunal during
the adjudication proceedings: It was only after the
arguments on behalf of the company were over on ·
December 14, 1953, that a list of names was filed before
the Industrial Tribunal. This list consisted of 220
persons only though the reference was with respect to
250. As has been pointed out by the Appellate Tribunal, it was a carelessly prepared list in which some
names were repeated. Against some serial numbers
there were neither names nor ticket numbers. In spite
of this, the Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement
without specifying who were to be reinstated; it really
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
157
did not know who were the persons to be reinstated.
What it did was to order the company in order ~hat
identity of the workmen to be reinstated might be
established to give a general notice on its notice-board
notifying the strikers to come and join their duties on
a fixed date and to reinstate whichever striker applied
within the time allowed.
This a.ward of the Industrial Tribunal has been
rightly criticised by the Appellate Tribunal, which has
charactrized this reinstatement as " vague and highly
objectionable ". The Appellate Tribunal was of the
view that "no award could be so loosely or vaguely
made ". It further went on to consider whether identity could in any manner be fixed. 1n this connection
it relied on the remarks ma.de by the company (which
had, however, objected to the production of the list at
that late stage) on this list under orders of the Industrial Tribunal. J!'rom these remarks the Appellate Tribunal ca.me to the conclusion that the identity of 115 workmen had been established. It found that 100 out .of
them had withdrawn their prc;vident fund. It, therefore, held that so far as these 100 were concerned, they
accepted the order of discharge because of the withdrawal of the provident fund and no further relief
could be granted to them. As for the remaining fifteen
workmen, it pointed out that they had not withdrawn
their provident fund. It, therefore, ordered these
fifteen workmen to be reinstated. l'ina.lly, it ordered
that no compensation could be allowed to the workmen
for the period between their discharge and their reinstatement because of the delay on their pa.rt in asking
for redress.
The reason which impelled the Appellate
Tribunal to order reinstatement was that the notice of
discharge dated April 6, 1948, was not served on the
workmen indivMually and though the notice of July 5,
1948, inviting the former workmen to come and join
the company was given wide publicity, it was also not
served on the workmen individually. According to
the Appellate Tribunal," the net result was that there
was defective communication of notice of discharge to
the workmen and the notice offering reinstatement
was not· also sufficiently published to enable it to hold
zg-59
Shalimar Wor.ts
Llmil#d.
v.
ThairWor.tnt1t1
w .. elloo J.
r959
Shalimar Works
Limited.
v.
Their Workfnen
Wanchoo j.
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
that the defect was cured ". As t6 the sit-down strike
itself, both the Tribunals were of the view that the
strike was the result of pre-concerted action and there
was no justification for it when the matter was pending
before a tribunal for adjudiction. The plea of the
workmen that the strike resulted
spontaneously
because of the insult offered by the manager to a.
deputation of the workmen on March 23 was disbelieved by both the Tribunals.
The main contention on behalf of the company in
this connection is that when both the Tribunals had
found the sit-down strike unjustified, they should have
held that the company was entitled to discharge the
workmen, in the particular circumstances of this case.
It is also urged that the discharge took place in April,
1948 and the company reopened in July, 1948; the
reference of the matter more than four years after
without the list of the workmen said to have been
discharged, was not proper. On the other hand it ha.s
been urged on behalf of the workmen that as a dispute
was pending between the company and its workmen,
the company could not discharge the workmen without
obtaining permission of the tribunal under s. 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, and inasmuch as the notice of
,discharge of April 6, 1948, was given without obtaining
the sanction of the tribunal before whom the dispute
was then pending, it was a breach of s. 33 and therefore the order of discharge being in breach of law the
workmen were entitled to reinstatement.
There is no doubt that strictly speaking the order of
the company discharging its workmen on April 6, 1948,
when a dispute was admittedly pending was a. breach
of s. 33 ; (see Punjab National Bank Ltd., v. Employees
of the Bank, (1 )).
The remedy for such a breach is
provided in s. 33-A and it can be availed of by an
individual workman. If therefore it was felt by the
workmen who were discharged on April 6, 1948, that
there was breach of s. 33 by the company, they should
have applied individually or collectively to the tribunal under s. 33-A. None of them did this. It is true
that some kind of letter was written to the Assistant
{I) [I9S3] $.C.R. 680.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
159
Labour Commissioner in November, 1949, but that was
also very late and nothing seems to have happened
thereafter for almost another three years, till the first
reference was made on October 7, 1952. It is true that
there is no limitation prescribed for reference of
disputes to an industrial tribunal; even so it is only
reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as
possible after they have arisen and after conciliation
proceedings have failed, particularly so when disputes
relate to discharge of workmen wholesale, as in this
case.· The industry has to carry on and if for any
reason there has been a wholesale discharge of workmen and closure of the industry followed by its
reopening and fresh recruitment of labour, it is necessary that a dispute regarding reinstatement of a large
number of workmen should be referred for adjudication
within a reasonable time. We are of opinion that in this
particular case the dispute was not referred for adjudication within a reasonable time as it was sent to the
Industrial Tribunal more than four years after even
re-employment of most of the old workmen. We have
also pointed out that it was open to the workmen
themselves even individually to apply under s. 33-A in
this case ; but neither that was done by the workmen
nor was the matter referred for adjudication within a
reasonable time. In these circumstances, we are of
opinion that the tribunal would be justified in refusing
the relief of reinstatement to avoid dislocation of the
industry and that is the correct order to make. In
addition, the reference in this case was vague inasmuch
as the names of 250 workmen to be reinstated were not
sent to the Industrial Tribunal and no list of these
men was given to it till practically after the whole
proceeding was over. Even tho list then supplied was
so bad that the Industrial Tribunal did not think it
worthwhile to act upon it, and directed the company
to give a notice to the strikers to ask for re-employment
within a certain time. This the company had already
done on July 5, 1948. That notice had gained considerable publicity, for the majority of the workmen
did appear thereafter for re-employment by July 21.
In the circumstances there was no reason for ordering
z959
Shalimar Works
Limited.
v.
Their Workmen
Wanchoo ].
z959
Shalimar Works
Liniited,
v.
Tlllir Workmna
Wamhoo ].
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
reinstatement of any one on such a vague reference
after such an unreasonable length of time. The defect,
in the order of discharge of April 6, due to permission
not having been obtained under s. 33 can in the
circumstances of this case be ignored on the ground
that the workmen who did not re-join in July 1948,
were not interested in reinstatement: firstly, on account
of the circumstances in which that order came to be
made after an illegal and unjustified sit-down strUrn,
secondly, because the workmen in their turn did not
avail themselves of the remedy under s. 33-A which
was open to them, and thirdly, because the reference
was made after an unreasonable length of time and in
a vague manner. We are therefore of opinion thatthe
Appellate Tribunal should not have ordered the reinstatement of even the fifteen workmen.in the circumstances as their case was exactly the same as the case
of the hundred workmen, except in the matter of the
withdrawal of the provident fund.
After the application for special leave was allowed
this Court made an order on September 26, 1955, that
seven days' wages every month should be paid by
the company to the fifteen workmen who had been
ordered to be reinstated. Learned counsel for the
company informs us that of these fifteen, only seven
have been turning up to receive this payment while
eight men never turned up. This shows that these
eight are not interested in the reinstatement. Of the
remaining seven, two, according to the learned counsel
for the company, have obtained other jobs while one
is said to be a member of Parliament. The company
was prepared to reinstate, out of human considerations, the other four, though, it contends that legallyand rightly so-it is not bound to reinstate any one of
these fifteen workmen. These four workmen whom
the company is prepared to take back are Nitai Manji,
Satya Charan Das, Mustafa Khan and Akil-ud-Din.
The appeal of the company must therefore be allowed
with respect to the remaining eleven workmen who
have been ordered to be reinstated, by the Appellate
Tribunal. The order of the Appellate Tribunal will
stand with respect to the four workmen named above in
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
161
view of the company's willingness to take them back.
The appeal of the workmen on the question of reinstatment fails and is hereby dismissed.
We may,
however, make it clear that payment made pursuant.
to the order of this Court will not in any event be
refundable or adjustable towards the future wages
of those workmen who will be reinstated by the
company.
BGth the company and the workmen have raised
otqer points in their respective grounds of appeal;
but as they have not been pressed before us we· need
not say anything \vith respect to them. In these
circumstances we are of opinion that both the parties
will bear their own costs of this Court.
Appeal No. 317 allowed.
Appeal No. 318 dismissed.
THE MANAGEMENT OF PRAGA INDUSTRIES
LTD., COIMBATORE
v.
THE WORKERS
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Award by consent-Interim increment of
wages in lieu of fixation of wage structure-Such award, if open to
challenge-Wage structure of piece-rate worlmien-JVhether entitled
to annual increment-Machinery, land, building on lease-Rehabilitation charges, if allowable-Bonus-Calculation of available siirplus.
The appellant was the lessee under Praga Industries and
took on lease buildings and machinery for five years with option
of renewal. The subject matter of dispute for arljudication was
with regard to the questions about (1) the quantum of bonus
payable to the workmen for the year 1954, and (2) fixation of
scale of wages with graded annual increments for different
categories of workmen.
,
In view of the .fact that the· lease in its favour was due to
expire shortly, the appellant had suggested to the Tribunal that
the question of classifying the workmen into skilled and unskilled
workmen and providing for systematic grades of pay with increments may conveniently be deferred to a future date; the
21
r959
Shalimar W oYks
Limited.
v.
Their Workmen
Wanchoo ],
I9J9
2'day 8