Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Workmen

FACTS

• Remington Rand of India Ltd. appealed against an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey.

• The main dispute referred to the Tribunal was the revision of wages based on a previous award by the Madras Labour Tribunal in 1960.

• The Tribunal's award also covered issues like working hours, workload, gratuity, and "moving staff allowance."

• The company challenged the award on several grounds, including that the Tribunal had erred in revising the wage scales and that the award was published beyond the statutory period (an argument dismissed by the Tribunal).

ISSUES

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in revising the wage scales as it had done, considering the head of dispute referred was a "revision of wages as per award of the Madras Labour Tribunal in 38 of 1960."

2. Whether the Tribunal erred regarding the working hours, workload, and "moving staff allowance."

3. Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the gratuity scheme.

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court ruled to return the matter to the Tribunal for resolution regarding the wage scale revision and worker adjustment.

• The gratuity scheme will be modified as per the court's direction (to align with the Bangalore branch's scheme).

• The remaining award will remain (upheld on issues like workload).

• The appeal was partially allowed, and the appellant was directed to cover the respondent's appeal costs.

OBSERVATION

• Wage Revision and Industry-cum-Region: The Court implied that the Tribunal had erred in revising the wage scales without strictly adhering to the industry-cum-region principle. This principle dictates that uniformity of service conditions should be maintained in comparable concerns in the industry within the same region to prevent labor migration and maintain competitive balance.

• Lunch/Moving Staff Allowance: Mitter J. observed that a company could not be compelled to pay lunch allowance to all workmen if it was only being paid to those who had to go to distant places and could not return to the office during the lunch period. Such an allowance cannot be extended to employees working only in the factory or office premises.

• Gratuity Scheme: The Court held that there was no reason why the scheme for gratuity should not be the same in the Ernakulam branch as in the Bangalore branch, specifically fixing the qualifying period for dismissal due to misconduct at 15 years' service.

• Workload (Commentary): The Court affirmed the Tribunal's award reducing the workload to "seven mechanics per day or 150 mechanics per month" (aligning with Delhi and Lucknow), rejecting the Management's claim that ten mechanics per day was justified.

COMMENTARIES

• Industry-cum-Region: The court affirmed that the foundation of the principle of industry-cum-region is to ensure uniformity of conditions of service in comparable concerns in the industry in a region. The mere fact that a particular concern can bear an additional liability is not, by itself, a ground to impose an extra obligation.

• Dearness Allowance Revision: The Court clarified that circumstances justifying the upward revision of dearness allowance include improvement in the financial position of the employer or a rise in the cost of living subsequent to a prior settlement or award.