# THE WORKMEN v. GREAVES COTTON & CO; LTD. & ORS

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 373
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-08-24
- **Bench:** G. K. Mitter, C. A. Vaidialingam, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-workmen-v-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-5366
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Workers in ruperrisory caparit_v getting less than
Rs. 500! per rnensem-lf they could raise a dispute regardil!g wages which
would take the salary beyond Rs. 5001- -When lvorkmen can raise a di.<?-
pute about the terms of employment of non-workmen .
•
This Court, in appeal against the award of the Industrial Tribunal in
disputes between the appeilants and the respondents, confirn1ed the v~:age
scale anc1 dearness allowance fixed by the Industrial Tritnual for the clerical and s.11bordinate staff, but set aside thr wage scale and dearness allow-
. ance fixed for factory worknten and remanded the matter to the Tribunal
for fresh fixation.
When the matter was taken up by the Tribunal the
\vorkmcn contended that the dispute regarding foren1en or supervisors \.\:as
concluded by the judgment of this Court on the grounc1 that they were
included in subordinate staff. The Tribunal, however, held that the supervisors were not workmen within the n1eaning of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947, and hence the claim for revision of 'Vages and dearness allowanoe
payable to them should be rejected.
In appeal by special leave to this Court, on the questions :
( 1 )
Whether the case of supcr.;sors was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication; (2) whether it was open to the respondents to contend for the first
time after remand that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix the wage
scale and dearness allowance of supervisors;
(3)
Whether
supervisors
getting less than Rs, 500 /- per mensem on the date of reference could
raise the dispute regarding wages which would take their ·salary beyond
Rs. 500 per mensem; ( 4) Whether, if the supervisors were all non-workmen, the appellants could raise a dispute about their terms of employment
and (5) whether in fact none of the supervisors was drawing less
than
Rs. 500 per mensem when the matter was taken up on remand and the
Tribunal was, therefore, ri&ht in rejecting the appellant's claim for fixation
of the wage scale and dearness allowance of supervisors.
HELD :
( 1) The ju~.gment of this Court shows that the subordinate
staff and factory workmen were treated separately. This Cotiif in remanding the case of the factory workmen had under contemplation all those
workmen, \Vho on· the date of reference, were employed in a supervisory
capacity and drawing less than Rs. 500. There is nothing in the remand
order to warrant the submission that the case of supervisors was included
in the category of subordinate staff, or, that it was not remanded.
f.38 l
C-D, F-Hl
(2) It was open to both parties to raise all the contentions that were
open to them, because, on remand the wage
st~ucture of the
factory
v.•orkers, including basic wage and dearness
allowance, had
to be
considered afresh ..
A reference to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the
award, to
which the special leave was confined. showed that both parties were proceeding on the basis that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with those
supervisors who, under the Act, were workmen.
[382 A-C]
(3) The Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider revision of wages, dearness allowance and other emoluments so long as there is a category of
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] l S.C.R.
workmen who though employed in a supervisory capacity, were drawing
less than Rs. 500/-. Even if they ask for a pay structure which
takes
their salary beyond Rs. 500/- that by itself does not preclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine what is the proper wage structure for
that class or category of workmen.
Once a Tribunal is vestecl with the
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute it does not cease to have that jurisdiction merely because the claim made goes beyond the wages which takes
workmen out of that category and makes them non-workmen.
What has
to be seen is whether on date of reference there was any dispute in respect of workmen w.hich could be referred under the Act to the Tribunal.
Therefore, supervisory staff drawing less thati Rs. 500/- per mensem cannot be debarre

## Text

_Characters 0–39,773 of 53,341. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39773 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
373
THE WORKMEN
v.
GREAVES COTTON & CO; LTD. & ORS.
August 24, 1971
[G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN
REDDY, JJ.]
Industrial Dispute-Workers in ruperrisory caparit_v getting less than
Rs. 500! per rnensem-lf they could raise a dispute regardil!g wages which
would take the salary beyond Rs. 5001- -When lvorkmen can raise a di.<?-
pute about the terms of employment of non-workmen .
•
This Court, in appeal against the award of the Industrial Tribunal in
disputes between the appeilants and the respondents, confirn1ed the v~:age
scale anc1 dearness allowance fixed by the Industrial Tritnual for the clerical and s.11bordinate staff, but set aside thr wage scale and dearness allow-
. ance fixed for factory worknten and remanded the matter to the Tribunal
for fresh fixation.
When the matter was taken up by the Tribunal the
\vorkmcn contended that the dispute regarding foren1en or supervisors \.\:as
concluded by the judgment of this Court on the grounc1 that they were
included in subordinate staff. The Tribunal, however, held that the supervisors were not workmen within the n1eaning of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947, and hence the claim for revision of 'Vages and dearness allowanoe
payable to them should be rejected.
In appeal by special leave to this Court, on the questions :
( 1 )
Whether the case of supcr.;sors was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication; (2) whether it was open to the respondents to contend for the first
time after remand that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix the wage
scale and dearness allowance of supervisors;
(3)
Whether
supervisors
getting less than Rs, 500 /- per mensem on the date of reference could
raise the dispute regarding wages which would take their ·salary beyond
Rs. 500 per mensem; ( 4) Whether, if the supervisors were all non-workmen, the appellants could raise a dispute about their terms of employment
and (5) whether in fact none of the supervisors was drawing less
than
Rs. 500 per mensem when the matter was taken up on remand and the
Tribunal was, therefore, ri&ht in rejecting the appellant's claim for fixation
of the wage scale and dearness allowance of supervisors.
HELD :
( 1) The ju~.gment of this Court shows that the subordinate
staff and factory workmen were treated separately. This Cotiif in remanding the case of the factory workmen had under contemplation all those
workmen, \Vho on· the date of reference, were employed in a supervisory
capacity and drawing less than Rs. 500. There is nothing in the remand
order to warrant the submission that the case of supervisors was included
in the category of subordinate staff, or, that it was not remanded.
f.38 l
C-D, F-Hl
(2) It was open to both parties to raise all the contentions that were
open to them, because, on remand the wage
st~ucture of the
factory
v.•orkers, including basic wage and dearness
allowance, had
to be
considered afresh ..
A reference to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the
award, to
which the special leave was confined. showed that both parties were proceeding on the basis that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with those
supervisors who, under the Act, were workmen.
[382 A-C]
(3) The Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider revision of wages, dearness allowance and other emoluments so long as there is a category of
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] l S.C.R.
workmen who though employed in a supervisory capacity, were drawing
less than Rs. 500/-. Even if they ask for a pay structure which
takes
their salary beyond Rs. 500/- that by itself does not preclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine what is the proper wage structure for
that class or category of workmen.
Once a Tribunal is vestecl with the
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute it does not cease to have that jurisdiction merely because the claim made goes beyond the wages which takes
workmen out of that category and makes them non-workmen.
What has
to be seen is whether on date of reference there was any dispute in respect of workmen w.hich could be referred under the Act to the Tribunal.
Therefore, supervisory staff drawing less thati Rs. 500/- per mensem cannot be debarred from claiming that they should draw more than Rs. 500/-
presently that is, c.t the very co1nmence1nent of inquiry or at some future
stage in their Sfn'ice. Th"' can only be deprived of the benefits if they
are non-workmen at the time they seek the protection of the Act.
[383
F-H; 384 A--C; G-H]
( 4) Workmen can raise a dispute in respect of matters affecting
the
employment} conditions of service etc. of workmen as well as non-\\1orkmen, when they have a community of interest. Such interest n1ust be real
and positiye and not merely fanciful or remote. But workmen cannot
take up a dispute in respect of a class of employees who are not workmen
and in whose terms of employment the workmen have no direct interest
of their own.. What interest suffices as direct is a question of fact; but as
long as there are persons in the category of workmen in respect of whom
a dispute has been referred it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that some or many of them may become non-workmen during the pendency of the dispute. [385 A-D; 387
H; 388 A-B]
All India Reserve Bank of India Enzployees Association
v.
R~erve
Bank of India, [1966] 1 S.C.R .. 25, Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v.
Managemellt of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 353, Workmen v.
Dahinl{eapara Tea £stare, A.LR. 1968 S.C. 1026, Western India Auto~
mobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, [1949] L.L.J. 245 and
Standard Vacuum Refining Company India v. Its
Workmen,
[1960] 3
S.C.R. 466, followed.
(5) In the present case, however, on the evidence, it must be held that
when the matter was taken up on remand there were no supervisors draw~
ing J&ss than Rs. 500 /- per mensem and hence, there were no employees
who were working in a supervisory capacity who can be said to be work~
men.
If there are no work.men of the category with respect to whom a
dispute has been referred, the Tribunal cannot be called upon to prescribe
a wage structure for non-existing workmen nor does it have jurisdiction to
do so. 1·he dispute with respect to them, must be deemed to have elapsed.
[388 C-F; 389 G-H]
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1239 to
1241 of 1966.
Appeals_ by special leave from the Award da1ed October l,
1965 of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bomboy in Reference (I.T.) Nos. 84, 112 and 121 of 1959.
K. T. Sule, M. G. Phadnis and Vim?et Kumar, for the appellants (in all the appeals).
G. B. Pai, P. N. Tiwari and P. K. Rele, for the respondents (in
all the appeals).
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
A
THE WORKMEN v. GREAVES COTTON LTD. (P. Jaganmohan 375
Reddy, J.)
P. Jagamnohan Reddy, J. These three Appeals are by the
P. Jagamnohan Feddy, J.
These three Appeals are by the
Workmen of the three Respondent Companie.s respectively-Civil
Appeal No. 1239 of 1966 is against Greaves Cotton & Co. Ud.,
Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 1966 is against Greaves Cotton &
B
Crompton Parkinson Pvt. L:d., (later amalgamated in 1966 and
a new Company formed as Crompton Greaves Ltd.), and Civil
Appeal No. 1241 of 1966 is against Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd.
c
D
E
On the 29th April 1958 a .charter of demands was presented
by the Workmen through their Trade Union Greaves Cotton and
Allied Companies Employees Union to the Respondents in the
above three Appeals and to Ruston & Hornby India Pvt. Ltd.
These demands were in respect of the
wage
scale, dearness
allowance, leave gratuity etc.
After the conciliation proceedings
under sub-section ( 4) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') had failed, the disputes in
respect of the aforesaid matters were ultimately referred by the
Maharashtra Government to Shri P. D. Sawarkar for adjudication
under Section lO(l)(d) read with 12(5) of the Act. In respect
of demands made against Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., the reference was made on 8-4-59 and 24-12-59; against Greaves Cotton &
Crompton Parkinson Pvt. Ltd. on 30-5-59 and 24-12-59 and that
against Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd., on 8-6-59 and 9-1-60 respectively. We are here not concerned with the other references. By
an Award dated 3rd June, 15th and 16th June 1960 the Sawarkar
Tribunal revised the wage scales and dearness allowance of all
workmen employed by those Companies. Ruston & Hornby India
Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the Awards to this Court which by a
common Judgment dated 14th November 1963 held that the wage
F · scale and dearness allowance fixed by the Industrial Tribunal for
the clerical and subordinate staff did not require any interference
and to that extent dismissed the Appeal.
It however set aside
the wage scale and dearness allowance fixed for factory workmen
and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh fixation of wage
scale and dearness allowance with these observations :
G
H
"We allow the Appeal with respect to the factory
workmen and send the case back to the Tribunal for
fixing the wage structure including basic wages and
dearness allowance and for granting adjustments in the
light of the ob3ervations by us.
The new Awara pursuant to this Award will come into force from the same
date namely April 1, ·1959".
When the references were taken up by the Tribunal on remand the
partie~ agreed that in view of the decision of this Court certain
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l S.C.R.
references stood finally disposed of namely references dated 24th
December, 1959 by the Workmen in Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd.,
and in Greaves Cotton & Crompton Parkinson Pvt. Ltd. and that
dated 9th January 1960 by the workmen of Kenyon Greaves Pvt.
Ltd. The other three which were also held to be finally disposed
of were against the Workmen of Ruston & Hornby India Pvt. Ltd.
with which we are not concerned in this Appeal. The parties
however, agreed that only three references dated .8th April, 1959,
30th May 1959 and 8th June, 1959 by workmen apainst Greaves
Cotton & Co. Ltd., Greaves Cotton & Crompton Parkinson Pvt.
Ltd., and Kenyon Greaves Pvt. Ltd. survive.
During the proceedings before the Tribunal two questions were raised :
( 1) Whether the Supreme
Court remanded
the
matter for consideration of the dispute in respect
of certain categories of
employees
including
those of the Supervisors; and
( 2) Whether irt was open to the Respondents to claim
fiiation of service conditions on the basis of
individual units.
On behalf of the employees it was contended that the dispute
regarding the Foremen or Supervisors who were included in the
term subordinate staff was concluded by the Judgment of the
Supreme Court inasmuch as it had dismissed the Appeal in respect of Clerical and subordinate staff.
The employers on the
other hand contended that the reference was in respect of the six
categories of Workmen specified in the Supreme Court Judgment
which included Supervisors. Shri Athalye who was the then Judge
of the Industrial Court after hearing the parties made an order on
14th July 1964, inter-dlia holding :
( 1) That the Companies were precluded from agitating that. wage scales in the differen.t factories should be
fixed on the basis of individual units; and
(2) that the Sawarkar Award was set aside by this
Court in respect of all workmen except those who could
be properly classified as office staff.
After this order
the Respondents were asked to file statements regarding
comparative wage scales of Supervisors, in their concerns
as well as in other concerns. These statements were
filed without prejudice to their contention
that the
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix wage scale in respect
of Supervisory staff. The documents filed on behalf of
the third Respondent namelv Kenyon Greaves Pvt Ltd.,
showed that it did not emnloy any staff in the Sunervisory grade. Thereafter the references were heard by
Shri Paralkar who had succeeded Shri Athalye as Judge,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
I
H
_, .
i$
' '
~-
~
.,
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
THE WORKMEN v. GREAVES COTTON LTD. (P. Jaganmohan
377
Reddy, J.)
Industrial Tribunal. It was contended before him that
the Foreman (Supervisors) were not workmen within
the definition given in the Act and that no wage scales
in respect of the Supervisors in the Respondent Companies should be fixed. The stand taken by the Appell~nt
was that --it-was not open to the Respondent Companies
to raise the question whether the Supervisors were Workmen within the meaning of the Act as it did not arise
on the remand orders made by this Court. In the alternative it was contended that many Supervisory workmen, concerned in the dispute were drawing a total
salary below Rs. 500 and that even if everyone. of
them was promoted from the category of supervisors
or for the sake of argument it was held that Foremen
and Supervisory staff were not workmen within the
meaning of the Act, the Workmen had a right to raise
a dispute regarding wage scale and dearness allowance
of the Supervisory staff because they have a community
of interest with them.
The Tribunal therefore
had
jurisdiction to entertain the dipute in respect of wage
scales and dearness allowance of the Supervisory staff.
The Appellant also contended on behalf of the Workmen that the only question that was pending before the
Tribunal was to fix wages for factory workmen and
therefore the Triburlal had no jurisdiction to decide at
that stage as to which category the workmen belonged.
The Tribunal by its Award of the 1st October 1965 held after
hearing the parties that Supervisors were not workmen within the
meaning of the Act and that the claim for revision of wage £Cale
and dearness allowance payable to them was in that view rejected.
Against this Award the above Appeals were filed by Special Leave
granted by this Court confined only to the point whether the
decision contained in paragraph 15 and 16 of the Award was
correct .
At the outset it was conceded by the parties that Civil Appeal
No. 1241 of 1966 by the Workmen against the Kenyon Greaves
Pvt. Ltd. did not survive because there are no persons working
in the Supervisory capacities and drawing less than Rs. 500'/-
being the two conditions requisite under Section 2(s) (iv) of the
Act to be a 'Workman' 'the. non fulfilment of which would deprive
the Tribunal of its_ jurisdiction to determine the dispute; and
therefore the appeal has to be dismissed.
Even in respect of the other two appeals the learned Advocate
for the Respondent submits that ~here are no workman working in
the Supervisory capacities and drawing less than Rs. 500/ - in the
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.R.
other two Undertakings in respeot of which the Ap~als have been
filed and consequently they should also be dismissed. We shall,
however, deal with this submission later on.
Befure us five contentions have been urged by the learned
Advocate for the Appellant :
First whether the case of Supervisors was at all remanded to
the Tribunal for adjudication by the Supreme Court;
Secondly whether it was open to the Respondents to agitate
when the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, for the first time
to challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to fix wage scale and
A
B
dearness allowance of the Supervisors;
C
Thirdly whether Supervisors getting less than Rs. 500 / - per
month on the crucial date namely the date of reference can raise
a dispute regarding wages which take them beyond Rs. 500 / -;
Fourthly whether workmen can raise a dispute about nonworkmen, as regards terms of employment of non-workmen and
D
in what circumstances.
Fifthly whether the Ti:ibunal on remand is right in holding
that in December 1964, none of the Supervisors were drawing
less than Rs. 500/-.
With respect to the first two contentions
the
Appellant's
learned Advocate submits that in the Special Leave Petition
against the Award passed by Mr. Sawarkar neither the wage·
scales of .Su~rvisors nor any question about the jurisdicton of
the Tribunal was raised nor was such a contention urged before
this Court in the Appeals which were partly allowed and remanded
by this Court.
Even before the Industrial Tribunal, after the
remand, when the Respondent Companies in compliance
with
its orders dated 15-1-54 submitted statements giving the names
of workmen including Su~rvisors (Foremen) which were covered by the reference and gave their details as called for by the said
Tribunal, the comments of the Appellants which were submitted
on 27-2-64 were that the category of Supervisors was not covered by the ·order of remand, and the wage scale and dearness
allowance for that category have been confirmed 'by this Court
by its judgment dated the 14th November 63. This was controverted by the Respondents and by further supplementary written
statement dated 16-3-64, each of the Respondent Companies, it
E
F
G
is alleged, tried to cover up and reagitate the matter which had
H
already been settled by this Court regarding uniform service conditions for the entire Greaves Cotton group of Companies on the
basis that Greaves Cotton & Co., was the principal Company.
,
'"" "~
..
.
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
THE WORKMEN v. GREAVES COTTON LTD. (P. Jaganmonan
379
Reddy, J.)
Even in these supplementary written statements it is alleged no
question was taken up by the Respondent Companies
that the
Foremen were not workmen within the meaning of the Act. The
Appellant had on 24-3-64 submitted an application to the Industrial Tribunal stating that the supplementary written statements
should not be taken on record since the issue in the said suppleme11tary statements regarding uniformity in the wage scale and
dearness allownace was decided by this Court. It also urged that
the issue regarding Drivers, Cleaners and apprentices and Supervisors were categories remand~d by the Supreme Court for fixing
their wage scale rhould be decided as a preliminary issue.
As we have already stated ~he Tribunal gave its decision on
the two issues which were raised before it after this Court had
remanded the matter. On the other hand it is contended by the
Respondents ~hat it is not open to the Appellants to raise this
question because the Special Leave having been confined only to
the point whether the decision contained in paragraphs 15 and
16 of the Award is correct, it is open to it to urge that the Supervisors were not workmen.
It was pointed out that from paragraph 15 and 16 of the Award it is evident that the demand for
the revision of the wage scale and dearness allowance of the
Supervisors even for the lowest grade on the lowest scale made
them non-workmen as their emoluments exceed
Rs.
500/-,
which decision also clearly indicates that the question of fixation
of the Supervisors wage scale and dearness allowance was remanded to the Tribunal. It is further stated that this Court had
in its Judgment dated 14th November 1963 allowed the Appeal
with respect to the 'factory workers' and sent the case back to
the Tribunal for fixing the wage structure for the factory workmen', that it is implicit in the otder of remand that the Tribunal
would have jurisdiction to determine whether any employee of
the factory was or was not a workman within the meaning of the
Act; that if the Appellant's contention is accepted it would virtually mean that this Court by its Judgment had conferred a jurisdiction on the Tribunal to deal with the case of non-workmen which
the Tribunal under the Act did not possess; and that the question
whether there is community of interest between other workmen ·
of the Respondents and Supervisors who may be non-workmen
is a mixed question of fact and law, which has not been raised
before the Tribunal and ought not be allowed to be raised for the
first time before this Court. It is also contended that the question
whether some of the workmen could raise a dispute regarding the
grades of the Supervisors as there is a community of interest was
not the subject matter of the decision in para 15 and 16 of the
Award, and that since the wages including dearness allowance
of all supervisors at the date of the Award were in excess of
380
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19 72] l S.C.R.
Rs. 500 / - the question of considering the claims of the Supervisors
who were non-workmen at the instance of supervisors workmen
does not arise.
It is not in our view necessary to go into these several contentions except to examine the scope of the Judgment of t!iis
Court in Civil Appeals Nos.
272-280 of 1962 dated 14-11-61
by which the remand was made to the Tribunal.
The order is
in the following terms :
"We therefore dismiss the Appeal so far as retrospective effect and adjustments as also fixation of wages
and dearness allowance with respect to clerical a.nd subordinate staff are concerned.
We allow the appeal
with respect to factory workmen and send the cases b:;ck
to Tribunal for fixing the Wage structure including basic
wage and dearness allowance and for granting adjustments in the light of the observations made by us .... ".
The Award of the Tribunal which this Court was considering in
the said appeals dealt with the clerical and subordinate staff
separately from the factory workmen. It is in respect of the
portion of the Award relating to Clerks ap.d subordinate staff
~hat the appeal was dismissed and that dealing with 1the factory
workmen was remanded. Factory workmen had been divided into
six categories and the employees of the Respondents had · been
directed to be fixed with separate wages for each ca:tegory. These
six categories were :
..
(i) Unskilled .
(ii) Semi-skilled I.
(iii) Semi-skilled II.
(iv) Skilled I.
( v) Skilled II, and
(vi) Skilled III.
Apart from this the Sawarkar Tribunal in para 58 said, in those
references it was concerned with the factory workmen of only the
three Respondent Companies; that different scales of wages prevail for different classes of workmen but which categories should
be placed in which class is not prescribed. It referred to the wage
scale of different classes of workmen prescribed by Shri Divatia
in which apart from the above six categories, three categories of
Supervisors grade I, II & III were also given. The Tribunal, however, while retaining these six categories introduced a seventh
category of higher unskilled, which as this Court observed was
not justified because there cannot be degrees of want of skill
among unskilled class.
Apart from
this the main
attack
was on the wages fixed for these six categories on the ground th~t_
A
B
c
,.
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
THE WORKMEN v. GREAVES COTTON LTD. (P. Jaganmohan 381
Reddy, J)
the Tribunal completely overlooked the :-vages prevalent for the~e
categories in concerns which jt had considered comparable. This.
Court observed "but the way in which the Tribunal has dealt
with the matter shows that it paid scant regard to the exemplars
filed before it and did not care to make the comparison for factory
workmen in the same way in which it had made comparison for
clerical and subordinate staff.
In
this
circumstances
wagescales fixed for factory workmen must be set aside and the matter
remanded to the Tribunal to fix wage scales for factory workmen
dividing them into six categories as at present and then fixing wage
after taking into account wages prevalent in comparable concerns.
The parties will be at liberty to lead further evidence in this connection".
It is clear from this judgment tha:t the subordinate
staff and factory workmen were treated separateiy and we cannot.
accept the contention of 1he learned Advocate for he Appellant
that in dismissing the appeal this Court had rejected the contentions of the Respondents relating to the Supervisors who according to it were included in the category of subordinate staff. Earlier
the Sawarkar Award had after noticing that there are 3 sub-divisions in the category of Supervisors laid down the scales which
were hip.her having regard to its desire to prescribe the same scabs
for the three sub-divisions as those for skilled sub-division I. It
is also apparent from the statements' filed that the Foremen or
Supervisors were divided into 3 categories according to their pay
'cales. The pay of the Grade I was Rs. 360-20-500, of Grade IIRs. 300-15-360 and of Grade III-Rs. 250-10-300. The Appellants th·~mselves referred to these Supervisors as Foreman. Work1
men under Section 2 ( s) (iv) of the Act means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled
or unskilled manual supervisory or technical work, "but does
nm include any such person who being employed in a supervisory
capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs .. 500/- per mensem or exercise either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by
reasons of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a ;nanagerial nature". This Court in remanding the case of the factory
workmen had under contemplation all those workmen who on the
date of t~e reference were employed in a Supervisory capacity
and drawmg less than Rs. 500 /- as these were included in six
categories of workmen as classified by the Tribunal. We do not
think there is anything in the remand order to warrant the submission that the case of Supervisors was included among the category of subordinate staff or that it was not remanded .
. After the remand. the Tribunal was justified in holding that
this Court had· set aside the Award of the previous Tribunal in
respect of all those workers who could not be properly classified
as office staff in which the Foremen or Supervisors could not be;
6. L 1340 Sup CT/71
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1912] I S.C.R.
included.
It is also not the case of the _Appellants that wo~k1¥s
who were working in a Supervisory capacity were c!assified . as
office staff. In our view it was opeft to both the parties to raise
all the contentions that were open to them because on remand
the wage structure of the factory workers including basic wa~e
and their dearness allowance had to be considered afresh.
This
conclusion is supported by the fact that parties we~e given liberty
to adduce further evidence in respect thereto.
A reference to
para 15 and 16 of the Award to which special leave is confined
. makes it clear that b<'th parties were proceedmg on the basis that
the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with those supervisors who
under the Act are workmen.
The only controversy was whether
the Tribunal could fix a wage scale for them which will ultimately
give them a total wage together with basic pay and dearness allowance of over Rs. 500/- p.m. or fix a scale which has an initial
starting salary with dearness allowance in excess of Rs. 500/- p.m.
which makes them non-workmen and thus deprive it of jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. It may be of interest to notice the
arguments addressed before the Tribunal on behalf of the parties.
The contention by the Companies was that though the Supervisors
may be in the category of workmen at the time of the reference
the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to revise their wages and
grant to them at any stage, a total emolument exceeding Rs. 500/-
as that would convert them into non-workmen.
On the other
hand on behalf of the employees the submission was that the Companies had not raised this question in appeal before the Supreme
Court and in any case it was not open to them to contend that the
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revise the wage scales of this class
as Shri Athalye in his order of 14-7-64 had on a consideratl~m
of the Judgment of this Court held that the question of revision
of the· wages and dearness allowance of the Supervisors class was
to be considered by that Tribunal.
In our view therefore, the
dispute relating to the Supervisors wage structure and dearness
allowance could, certainly on the plea of both employers and
employees, be determined by the Tribunal.
The only auestion
that could be P!lised and has been raised was whether 1he Tribunal
has jurisdiction to fix wage scales to go beyond Rs. 500/-, and
whether as a matter of fact there were" any workmen at the time
<>f the dispute who were working in a supervisory capacity drawing a wage not exceeding Rs. 500/-.
The Tribunal noted that
Shri Phadke for the Companies did not urge that the per~ons for
whom revision was sought are engaged in managerial functions or
at the time the dispute arose were all non-workmen so ;is to disentitle them to raise the dispute and to exclude the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal altogether. If it were so, the Tribunal observed,
the question must be deemed to have been impliedly concluded
by the decision of the s'upreme Court and the interpretation vnt
A
B
D
E
F
G
c
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
THE WOilK~Jc~i >'. GREAVES COTTON LTD. (P. Jaganmohan JS3
Reddy, J)
on it bv Shri Athalye.
It was also not disputed before it that
there were persons employed in a Supervisory capacity drawing
a wa,ge not exceeding Rs. 500/- and who as workmen within the
amended definition of that expression were interested in demanding scales which take them beyond Rs. 500/-. But it was contended by the Companies that even if the employees are entitled
to raise the demand the Tribunal would have no 1urisddion to
grant it in a manner so as to convert them into non-workmen.
On these contentions the Tribunal held that although •he
Supervisors drawing a wage not exceeding Rs. 500/- may be entitled to raise the demand and ask for a scale which would take
them beyond Rs. 500/- they would not be justified in making a
claim, for· a scale which at the very commencement would provide
them with a wage in excess of Rs. 500/-. A claim for Rs. 300/-
as basic wage for the last grade of Supervisors together with a
claim for dearness allowance would come to an amount in excess
of Rs. 500/- and thus convert the Supervisors into non-workmen
even at the very commencement.
Such a claim, the Tribunal
thought would obviously not be tenable because although it may
be permissible on the grounds of social justice to revise the wage
scale which may be justified by the circumstances in the case it
will not be permissible for the Tirbunal to fix it so as to convert a
workman into a non-workman.
This leads us to the consideration of the third and the fourth
point urged before us namely whether the Supervisors
getting
less than Rs. 500 /- per month on the cruciaJ date wlJ.ich is the
date of reference can raise the dispute for wages· taking them beyond Rs. 500 /- and whether workmen can raise a dispute about
non-workmen.
In our view the Tribunal has jurisdiction to
consider revision of wage scale, dearness allowance and other
emoluments so long as there is a category of workmen who are
employed in a supervisory capacity and drawing Jess than Rs. 500/-.
Even where the workmen in a supervisory capacity ask for a pay
structure which tak.~s them beyoned Rs. 500 that by itself does
not preclude Hs jurisdiction to detennine what is the proper wage
structure, for that class or category of workmen.
The view of
the Tribunal was that though it is possible for Supervisors who
are workmen on the date of the reference to demand a wage scale
beyond Rs. 50~1 - they would not be justified in making a claim
for a scale which at the very commencement would give them
a wage in excess of Rs. 5001 - so as to take them out of the cate-·
gory of workmen and make them non-workmen. The learned
Advocat.~ for the Appellant submits tha't merely because a claim
is made by the Supervisors for an initial wage in excess of Rs. 500/ -·
it d0.~s not imply that it will be granted or merely,for that reason
deprive the Tribunal of its jurisdiction to pass an Award in respect of a wage which it considers to be fair and proper. There
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 s.c.R.
is no gain-saying the fact that once a Tribunal is vested with the
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute which is validly referred,
1t
does not cease to continue thaot jurisdiction merely because the
claim made goes beyond the wage which takes workmen out of
'that category and make them non-workmen. What has to be seen
is whether on the date of the reference there was any dispute in
respect of the workmen which could be referred under the Act to
the Tribunal. In any case can workmen raise a dispute about
non-workmen eveμ if many or all of them have since the reference
become non-workmen? In All India Reserve Bank of India Employees Asi{x:iation v. Reserve Bank of lndia,(1) this Court had
occasion to consider these aspects. In that case Class II and
Class III staff of the Reserve Bank of India through their Association and ~Ja~s IV staff through their Union raised an industrial
dispute which was referred by the Central Govt. to the Tribunal.
One of the items referred concerned scales of pay, allowances and
sundry matters connected with the conditions of service of the
three classes, the most important ones being the demand of Class
II staff claiming a scale commencing with Rs. 500/-. The Tribunal held that the Class II staff worked in a Supervisory capacity and this demand for a minimum salary of Rs. 500/-, if conceded, would take the said staff out of the category of 'workman'
as defined in Sec. 2 ( s) of the Act.
Such an Award, and any
Award, carrying wag'es beyond Rs. 500/- at any •tage,
was
according to the Tribunal beyond its jurisdiction
to make. It
also held that other workmen could not raise a dispute which
would involve consideration of matters in relation to non-workmen and that it 'would be even beyond the jurisdiction of the
Central Govt. to refer such a dispute under the Act.
The Tribunal therefore made no Award in regard to the Supervisory staff
in Class II.
This Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding
that if at a future time an incumbent would draw wags in the
time scale in excess of Rs. 500/-, the matter must be taken to
be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Central Govt. to make
a reference in respect of him and the Tribunal to be ousted of
the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, if referred Supervisory
staff drawing less than Rs. 500/ per month cannot be debarred
· from claiming that they should draw
more
than Rs. 500 /-
presently or at some future stage in their service.
They can
only be deprived of the benefits, if they are non-workmen at the
time they seek the protection of the Act.
It was further held
that in Sec. 2 (k) of the Act the word 'person' has not been
limited to 'workmen' and must therefore receive a more general
(I) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25.
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
THE WORKMEN v. GREAVES COTTON LTD. (P. Jaganmoha11 385
Reddy, J.)
meaning.
But it does not mean any person unconnected with
the disputants in relation to whom the dispute i~ not of the
kind described.
It could not have been intended that although
the dispute does not concern them in the least,
workmen are
entitled to fight it out on behalf of non-workmen.
But if the
dispute is regarding employment, non-employment,
terms
of
employment, or conditions of labour of non-workmen in which
workmen are themselves vitally interested the workmen
may
be able to raise an industrial dispute. Workmen can for example
raise a dispute that a class of employees not within the definition
of 'workmen' should be recrui'ted by promotion from workmen.
When they do so the workmen raise a dispute about the terms
of their own employment thou~~ incidentally the terms of employment of those who are not workmen is involved. But workm~
~annot take up a dispute in respect of a class of employees who
are not workmen and in whose terms of employment those work-
. men have no direct interest of their own.. What direct interest
suffices is a qestion of fact but it must be .a real and positive
interest and not fanciful or remote.
Hidayatullah, J, as he then
was, speaking for this Court concluded at page 45 thus :
"It follows therefore that the National
Tribunal
was in error in considering
the claim
of
class 2
employees whether at the instance of members drawing
less than Rs. 500 I - as wages or at the instance of
those lower down in the scale of employment. The
National Tribunal was also in error in thinking that
scales of wages in excess of Rs. 500 per month at any
stage were not within the jurisdiction bf the Tribunal
or that Govt. could not make a reference in such 1 contingency.
We would have been required to cc nsider
the scales applicable to those in Class II but f•
the
fact that the Reserve Bank .has fixed scales whi h are
admitted to be quite generous".
The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate 1. Management of Dimakuchi
'rea Estate, ( 1)
was
referred to
with
approval.
There 1~e m.ajority S. R. Dass, C.J, S. IC. Das, J.
(A. K. Sarkar J, d1ssentmg) had held that the workmen cannot
raise a dispute in respect of a non-workman one Dr.
K. P.
Ban_erjee. whose services were terminated by the management by
paymg him one month salary in lieu of notice.
It was contended that Dr. Banerjee being not a workman his case is not one
of a!1 i_nd~s~rial dispute u_nder the Act and is therefore beyond
the 1unsd1ct10n of the Tnbunal to give any relief to him.
The
matter had been referred to a Board known as the Tripartite
(I) A.LR. 1958 S.C. 353.
3·86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
tl972) 1 S.C.R.
Appellate Board which recommended that Dr. Banerjee should
be reinstated from the date of his discharge.
Later the Govt.
of Assam referred the dispute for adjudication to a Tribunal
constituted under Sec. 6 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that
it had no jurisdiction to give any relief to him.
The Appeal
to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta was also
dismissed.
Special Leave was granted but was limited to the
question whether the dispute in relation to a person who is not
a workman falls wihin the scope of an industrial dispute under
Sec. 2(k) of the Act.
The majority held that where the workmen raise a dispute as against their employer the
"person regarding whom the dispute is raised must
be one in whose employment, non-employment, terms
of employment or conditions of labour (as the case
may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or
substantial interest ..... Where the workmen raise a dispute as against their employer, the person
regarding
whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the dispute
is
raised,
need not be, strictly speaking, a 'workman' within the
meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct
or substantial interest".
Applying these principles the majority came to the eonclusion
that Dr. Banerjee who belonged to the Medical or. Technical
staff was not a workman and the Appellants had neither direct
nor
substantial
interest
in
his
employment
or
nonemployment and even assuming that he was a member of the
!!allle trade Union it cannot be said on the test laid. down that
the dispute regarding his termination of service was an industrial
dispute. within the meaning of Sec. 2 (k) of the Act:
S. K.
Das-, 1\ who delivered the judgment of the majority in the above
case also
spoke. for the
Court in Workmen v. Dahingeapara
Tea Estate.( 1) In the Dahingeapara case on the sale of the
11ea Estate as a going concern the purchaser continued to employ
the labour and some members of the staff of the vendor.
The
question was whether the dispute raised
by
such
workmen
regarding the employment of the rest of the members of the
old staff was an industrial dispute. It was held that it was. The
reference was against the outgoing management
as
well
as
against the incoming management of the Tea Estate.
It may
be noticed that under the agreement of sale an option was given
to the purchaser to continue in employment the members of.
(!) A.T.R. 1968 S.C. 1026.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
/
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
THE WORKMEN v. GREAVES COTTON LTD. (P. Jaganmohan 381
Reddy, J.)
the staff.
It also made the vendor liable for t~ claims
by
the.