http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.:   Appeal (civil)   2749 of  1982

PETITIONER: WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANAGER, ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO.  LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/03/2001

BENCH: L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..JG.B.   Pattanaik,  S.  Rajendra  Babu, D.P.       Mohapatra,,Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V.  Patil &

JUDGMENT:

[WITH CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 2750/1982 AND 2751/1982] J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

RAJENDRA BABU,  J. : L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J     These three appeals have been presented by special leave by  the General Secretary of the General Insurance Employees Union,  Madras.  In Civil Appeal No.  2749/1982, cases of 12 workmen  and  in  Civil Appeal No.  2750/1982  cases  of  14 workmen  have  been  referred  to  the  Industrial  Tribunal (hereinafter  referred to the Tribunal), on dispute  being raised  on  the  question as to whether the  action  of  the management  of  the  Oriental  Fire  and  General  Insurance Company  Ltd.,  Madras  in not re-categorising  the  workmen mentioned in the course of reference is justified ?  If not, to  what  reliefs the concerned workmen are entitled  ?   In Civil  Appeal  No.   2751/1982   question  referred  to  the Tribunal  is slightly different, that is, whether the action of  the  management  in  re-categorising  Shri  C.R.   Mane, Assistant,  as Record-keeper is justified ?  If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date ?

   In all these cases the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal to  whom  the reference was made gave an award stating  that the scheme has been framed for rationalising or revising the pay-scales  and other terms and conditions of service of the officers  and  other  employees  in  the  General  Insurance Company  which  has been published by a notification  issued under  Section  16(6)  of the Central Act 57  of  1972  and, therefore,  if the employees or the management feel that the existing provisions in the scheme relating to categorisation are  arbitrary or in practice work hardship to the employees it  is for the Union to take up this issue and pursuade  the Central  Government  which  will be entitled  under  Section 16(6), by notification, to modify the same and by no stretch of imagination the Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes  Act  can  declare  the action  of  the  management unjustified  and reject the scheme.  In case of C.R.   Mane, the  Tribunal noticed that if the concerned workman had  any grievance  he  ought to have made an appeal to the Board  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the Company to which he belonged and such representation had been  made to the Review Committee and the Review  Committee gave  its finding and, therefore, the Tribunal took the view that  the finding of the Review Committee that the concerned workman  was properly categorised as Record Clerk appears to be  justified  and calls for no interference and it  had  no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case.

   The scope of categorisation under different schemes will be  with reference to different classes of workmen.  Whether any particular workman has to be categorised in one category or another or categorisation of such workman in one group or another  or non-categorisation of such workman in one  group or  another  gives rise to a dispute for reference and  that was  exactly the dispute before the Tribunal.  That  dispute has  to be resolved with reference to the principles  stated in  the  scheme and apply the scheme with reference to  each one  of the workmen and find out whether the  categorisation of  that  workman is correct or not.  That exercise has  not been  done  by  the Tribunal, but it has simply gone  on  to proceed that placing of one or other workman in one category or  another  is itself a part of the scheme and,  therefore, the  Tribunal  cannot  examine the same.  This  approach  of Tribunal  is not justified at all.  Therefore, we set  aside the  awards  in each of these cases and remit the matter  to the  Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of this order.

   The   appeals  are  allowed   accordingly  with   costs. Advocates  fee  is  fixed at Rs.  2500/- in each  of  these three cases.