Case Brief: Hindustan Aeronautics ltd. Vs. The Workmen and ors.
Updated: Jun 23, 2020
(1.) TITLE AND CITATION:
In the Supreme Court of India civil appeal No. 1330 of 1969
Appellants: Hindustan Aeronautics ltd.
Vs.
Respondents: The Workmen and ors.
(2.) RELEVANT FACTS:
In this case the appeal by special leave filed by
appellants. From the award made by the Industrial Tribunal,West Bengal.
So,reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 the act was called
for adjudication. The tribunal allowed allowance for the education
issue 1 revision of lunch allowances issue 4 and canteen employees should be
made permanent the name of 10 employees given issue no.5. But not
allowed on house building loan issue no.2 and free conveyance or
conveyance allowances issue 3. That is why appellant filed the appeal.The
competency of the government of W.B. to make reference was challenged.
But the learned counsel Submitted for the appellant that the appropriate
government is competent to make the reference according to sec.2(A) of
the act.CG owned the entire bundle of the shares in the company. It
appoints and removes the BOD as well as the Chairman and M.D.The MOA
and AOA unmistakably point out the vital role and control of the CG.So, the
counsel Submitted that the industry which was carried on "under the
authority of the CG" within the meaning of Sec.2(a)(i) and CG was the only
appropriate government to make reference u/s 10. But it was repelled
according to the Heavy Engineers Mazdoor Union Vs. The state of Bihar
and ors that beside CG having contributed the entire share capital,
extensive power like give directions as to how company should function
the power to appoint directors, etc.And these powers are derived from the
company's MOA and AOA. But the main question was whether a
corporation is an agent of the state. As a statue setting up a corporation so
provides, such a corporation can easily be identified as the agent.Appellant
counsel made a attempt to differentiate between Govt.company carrying
on an industry and PSU were also operating. Appellants counsel said that
on an industry and PSU were also operating. Appellants counsel said that
no public company even if the shares were exclusively owned by the
government should be included in the definition.Competency of WB
government was challenged. But for any industrial dispute WB government
is liable so they have to maintain.The demand of the workmen were
education allowance of the children.Workmen at Barackpore had also been
provided. The company have to pay Rs.12 per month to each employee.But
tribunal has no jurisdiction to change the wage structure and this issue
couldn't form a subject matter.In issue no.4 on behalf of the appellant, all
staff and not any the supervisory staff were getting Rs.1.50 as lunch
allowance.Award of tribunal was unncessary and superfluous. In the issue
no.5 the 10 workmen sought to be made permanent.But, the tribunals
direction to make them permanent and treating them as probationers
appointed in permanent vacancies was not justified.The mgmt. has no
objection in absorbing 10 workmen.
(3.) ISSUES:
» What was the competency of the government of WB to make the
reference?
» Who will maintain the industrial peace at Barackpore?
» Issuing calim on the issue no. 1,4 and 5 is justiciable?
(4.) CONTENTIONS:
» Tribunal allowed claim on issue 1,4 and 5.The appellant allowed to appeal
in against of the tribunal's decision.
» The competency of WB to make reference was challenged and it was
submitted that the CG is the only appropriate Govt. to make reference.
» For any infringement of industrial peace at Barackpore who will maintain.
It was submitted that the WB government will maintain.
» Allowance for the education of employees children and award by the
tribunal was challenged.And it was highlighted that tribunal has no
jurisdiction.
» Revision of lunch allowances demanded.But it was submitted that the
award of tribunal was unnecessary and superfluous in that regard.
» The last issue was they want 10 workmen sought to be permanent.But
probationers can't be appointed as permanent members.
probationers can't be appointed as permanent members.
(5.) HOLDINGS:
» The competency of the Govt. of WB to make reference was challenged.
But learned counsel Submitted for the appellant that the appropriate Govt.
is competent to make the reference according to sec.2(A) of the act. CG
owned the entire bundle of the shares in the company.It appoints and
removes the BOD as well as the chairman and MD. But the MOA and AOA
plays a vital role.The counsel Submitted that the industrial dispute in
question concerned an industry which was carried on "under the authority
of the CG" within the meaning of the sec.2(a)(i) of the act and the CG was
appropriate Govt. to make the reference u/s 10.But, it was repelled.the
main question is whether a corporation of the state? Such corporation
identified as the agent of the state.The appellant counsel said that
amendments can be done time to time in sec.2(a)(i). But no public
company should be included in the definition.
» Competency of WB Govt. was challenged in context of reference.
Barackpore was a separate branch. Workers receiving their wages at WB.
And for any disturbance in Barackpore WB Govt. is responsible. So, the
reference for adjudication of dispute by the governor of WB is valid.
» Demand from the respondents for education allowance of the children.
The workmen provided certain education facilities.The company have to
pay Rs.12 per month.Tribunal felt that this couldn't form a subject matter of
industrial dispute.Tribunal directed by way of revision of pay structure.But
tribunal has no jurisdiction.So, latest revised structure should be consider.
But defence counsel didn't accept it. Issue4 it was stated that not any the
supervisory staff were getting Rs.1.50 as lunch allowances. Award of the
tribunal was unnecessary and superfluous.Under the existing service every
employee eligible to get a lunch allowance was getting Rs.1.50.In issue5 10
workmen sought to be made permanent.According to clause(b)(d) of
Standing order1 workers appointed as temporary workmen.To make them
permanent and appointing probationers as permanent is not justified.No
direction was given for new posts.The mgmt. has no objection in absorbing
10 workmen concerned permanent vacancies when they occur if any of
them has not been already absorbed.Award of the tribunal is set aside.In
the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
» (6.) RULE OF LAW/Laws Applicable:
*Sec.2(A)-Appropriate Govt.-competent to make the reference was the CG
or, if a State Govt.,
Sec.2(a)(i)-The industrial dispute in question concerned an industry which
was carried on under the authority of the CG comes under the ambit of this
sec. and it can be amended.
Sec.10-Reference of dispute to Boards,Courts or tribunals (CG was the only
appropriate Govt. to make the reference).
Clause(b)(d)of the standing order 1(workmen before 4-1-1967 within the
meaning of clause(b)(d) headed "classified of workmen".Appointed as
temporary workmen with in the meaning of clause(b)(d).
»CONCLUSION :
As a result of the case award of the tribunal is set aside. In the
circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.I am satisfied with
decision of the SC and the appellant is rightly mentioned all the data which
are related to financial details of the company. The opponents objections
were diluted because what I think is that there was some translucency
between the appellant and the respondents that is why the issues were
raised. Because the appellant clearly stated that they were already taking all
the necessary steps which they need to do. And at some places tribunal
doesn't have the jurisdiction. And some issues were not an industrial
dispute.So,that is why the appellants get the right to special leave in the SC
and awards of the tribunal set aside.
Authored & Briefed By: Mayank Jha
Student, B.B.A.,LL.B., 3rd Year, (FIMT School of Law, GGSIPU)