Search

Case Brief: Hindustan Aeronautics ltd. Vs. The Workmen and ors.

Updated: Jun 23

(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)

0 views

CIN No: U74999DL2016PLC302708

Don’t love itNot greatGoodGreatLove it
Rate Us now !

© 2020 A & S Jurisprudentia Ltd.

View Website in

Connect With us for regular updates.