http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KAMANI EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1973

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1975 AIR  635            1974 SCR  (1) 108  1975 SCC  (4) 841

ACT: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 10(1)(d)-Dispute  relating to  revision  of  Production  bonus  referred  to  Tribunal- Subsequently another reference made as to question whether a scheme of Production bonus adopted by another company should be  adopted or not-Second reference is connected with  first dispute and is competent.

HEADNOTE: On December 19. 1962 the Government of Maharashtra  referred certain  ,disputes between the respondent workmen and  their employers,  to  the  Industrial Tribunal.   Dispute  no.  3 related  to Production bonus payable to the  workmen under the  existing  scheme.  When the adjudication of  the  above reference  was pending, the State Government on January  18, 1964 made another reference to the Tribunal of the  question : "Should the existing Incentive Scheme of Production  bonus be  replaced  by the new scheme evolved  by  Messrs.   Ibcon Private  Limited  in  their report  dated  October  1963  as desired  by the Management ?" The respondent union filed  an application  before the Tribunal that the  second  reference dated January 18, 1964 should not be adjudicated upon as  it really amounted to withdrawal of the previous reference made on December 19, 1962, and interfered with the powers of  the Tribunal  in  dealing  with  dispute  no.  3  in  the  first reference.   The  Tribunal overruled the objection  but  the High  Court in a writ petition under Art. 226 accepted  the contention of the union. In appeal by the State on certificate, HELD : Even without the second reference, the Tribunal, when dealing with demand no. 3 of the first reference. could have also considered the question of adopting the scheme  evolved by  Ibcon Private Limited because it was a relevant  matter, and  also connected with the Production Bonus Scheme.   When it  was  so open to the Tribunal to consider the  Scheme  of Ibcon the fact that the Government specifically referred for consideration the said Scheme, makes no difference.  At  any rate  the  question covered by the second  reference  was  a matter ’connected with or relevant’ to dispute no. 3 of  the first  reference  and hence the State was  well  within  its jurisdiction  under  section  10(1)(d)  of  the   Industrial Disputes  Act in passing the order dated January  18,  1964.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court must be set aside. [111G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1098  of 1969. Appeal  by  certificate from the judgment  and  order  dated March  15,  1966 of the Bombay High Court in  Special  Civil Application No. 1067 of 1964. M. C. Bhandare, and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. R. P. Kapur, for respondent No. 2-1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VAIDIALINGAM,  J.-This appeal, on certificate, by the  State of Maharashtra is directed against the judgment and order of the  Bombay High Court dated March 15, 1967,  Special  Civil Application  No.  1067 of 1964, quashing the  order  of  the State Government dated January 18, 1964, making a  reference to the industrial Tribunal. At the outset, it must be stated that the workmen who  filed the  ’Writ  Petition in the High Court and got an  order  in their faVour, have  109 not  appeared  before us to support the order of  the,  High Court.   On  behalf  of the management, which  was  a  party before  the Tribunal and before the High Court it  has  been represented  that  ’it  is no longer.  interested  in  these proceedings. It is necessary to state a few facts leading upto the filing of  the  writ petition in the High Court.  On  December  19, 1962 the State.  Government referred certain disputes  for adjudication  to  the  Industrial Tribunal  The  matters  in disputes included various items; but it is only necessary to refer  to  dispute No. 3 which related to  the  Production,, bonus.  That dispute relating to Production Bonus in Part  I for Daily Rated workmen was as follows "3. Production Bonus.               The,   present  incentive  scheme  should   be               revised as under               (a)   The scheme should be made applicable  to               all the departments of the company.               (b)   When the production in the establishment               reaches,  500  tons in a month all  the  daily               rated workers should get 10 per cent of  their               total  earnings  as  production  bonus.    The               number  of  workmen being the  average  number               employed in the year 1960.               (c)   For every 10 tons increase in a  month’s               production above 500 tons a 2% increase in the               percentage  should  be given over  and.  above               that in clause (b) above.               (d)   The   existing  by  laws   and   clauses               regarding  the  absenteeism  etc.  should   be               abolished.               (e)   Bonus should be determined by the  ratio               of days filled in by a worker to the number of               working days in a month.               (f)   The  above benefits should be paid  with               retrospective effect from 1st July 1961."               In  part 11. for Monthly Rated employees,  the               dispute  regarding  Production  Bonus  was  as               follows               "3. Production Bonus.               (i)   Monthly   rated   employees    connected

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             directly   with  production  should  be   paid               production  bonus  at the same  rate  paid  to               daily rated workmen.               (ii)   50%  of the average  production   bonus               paid to the employees directly connected  with               production,  should  be  paid  as  productions               bonus  to all other monthly  rated  employees.               Production   bonus  for  all   monthly   rated               employees  should be paid  with  retrospective               effect from 1st July, 1961." When  the  adjudication on that reference was  pending,  the State Government on January 18, 1964. made another reference to the same Tribunal as follows "Should the existing Incentive Scheme of Production Bonus be replaced by the new Incentive Scheme evolved 110 by  Messrs.   Ibcon Private Limited in  their  report  dated October 1963 as desired by the Management ?" In  this order of reference, it was stated that  a  previous reference  had  already  been made  on  December  10,  1962, regarding  the revision of production bonus scheme  for  the workmen  of  the  company.  It is further  stated  that  the company made a representation Co the State Government that the  terms of reference already made should be  supplemented so  as  to  include the above  question  also.   The  State. Government  has also stated in the said order that it is  of the opinion that the matter on which a further reference  is asked for by the employer is "connected with or relevant  to the  said dispute".  The reference to the "said dispute"  is regarding the revision of production bonus which was already the subject of the reference dated December 19, 1962. The Tribunal appears to have passed an award on February 27, 1964,  on  all the disputes comprised in the  1st  Reference excepting  demand No. 3, which, as we have  already  stated, relates  to  the revision of the existing  production  bonus scheme.  The union filed an application before the Tribunal, stating  that the second reference dated January  18,  1964, should  not be adjudicated upon.  This objection was  raised on the ground that the order dated January 18, 1964,  really amounts to the withdrawal of the previous reference made  on December 19 1962 and that it interferes with the exercise of the  powers  of the Tribunal in the matter  of  adjudicating dispute No. 3 already referred to it’ The management opposed this application on the ground that the order dated  January 18,  1964,  does  not have the  effect  of  withdrawing  the previous  reference and that on the other hand, the  dispute that was referred by order of 1964 was really one "connected with  or relevant to the dispute" which was already  pending adjudication before the Tribunal. The  Tribunal  overruled the preliminary  objection  of  the workmen  about  the  competency of the  Reference  made  on January 18, 1964; and it resulted in the latter  approaching the  High Court under Article 226.  The High Court,  in  its present order,. accepting the contentions of the union,  has held  that  the second order. dated January  18,  1964,  had really  the  effect of superseding- the  previous  reference made  on December 19, 1962 and also of interfering with  the powers exercised by the Tribunal in respect of the  previous reference. Mr. Bhandare, learned counsel, for the appellant-State,  has contended  that  the reasoning of the High  Court  that  the second  order  of reference amounts to a withdrawal  of  the Previous  order dated December 19, 1962, is fallacious.   He has  further  pointed  out that the subject  matter  of  the reference  dated January 18, 1964, could have been  included

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

in  the  order of December 19, 1962 and then it  would  have been  perfectly competent for the Tribunal to  consider  the nature of the modification that is to be effected in respect of the production scheme then existing in the company.   For that purpose, the Tribunal could have considered the  nature of the modifications required by the workmen as well as  the further  question  whether the Incentive me evolved  by  the Ibcon Private Limited could be adopted.  Mr. Bhandare 111 also  pointed  out that the question covered by  the  second reference  is  really  a matter  which  "connected  with  or relevant   to  the  dispute"  already  pending  before   the Tribunal. We  are of the opinion that the contentions of Mr.  Bhandare have  to  be accepted.  We are not able  to  appreciate  the reasoning  of  the  learned  Judges  that  the  order  dated January-  18,  1964,  has  the  effect  of  withdrawing   or superseding the reference already made on December 19, 1962. There  Will be Withdrawal of a reference, when  the  dispute referred is taken out of the purview of the Tribunal.  There will  be  supersession  of a previous  Reference,  when  the second  Reference  comprises  matters  or  disputes  totally unconnected  with or different from the disputes  originally referred.  Neither is the case here.  On the other hand,  in our  opinion  the  question  regarding  the  nature  of  the modification  to be effected to the production bonus  scheme has  to be considered by the Tribunal having due  regard  to the  scheme  as  it  exists  as  well  as  to  the   various suggestions  that  may be made by the parties,  namely,  the employer  and the employee.  If the employer had  relied  on the  scheme  evolved  by  M/s Ibcon  Private  Ltd.,  it  was certainly  competent  for the tribunal to consider  how  far that scheme could be adopted in this particular case.   This aspect  could have been considered by the Tribunal,  because it  is  "connected with or relevant to the  dispute  No.  3" relating to Production  Bonus. We  are  not inclined to accept the view of the  High  Court that  the  reference dated January 18, 1964, in  any  manner interferes  with the powers of the Tribunal in  adjudicating upon  the  demand  No.  3  covered  by-the  reference  dated December 19, 1962.  In fact, in our view, the question  that has  been further referred by order dated January 18,  1964, is really a matter connected with or relevant to dispute No. 3  already  pending adjudication before the  Tribunal.   The Tribunal had full jurisdiction when dealing with demand  No. 3 covered by the order dated December 19, 1962, to  consider the  report  mentioned  in the  subsequent  reference  dated January  18, 1964.  It had full power to consider as  to  in what  manner  and to what extent the modification is  to  be effected  in the Incentive Scheme obtaining in the  company. In  fact. even without the second Reference,  the  Tribunal, when  dealing with demand No. 3 of the 1st Reference,  could have,  also considered the question of adopting  the  Scheme evolved by Ibcon Private Limited, because it was a  relevant matter; and also connected with the Production Bonus Scheme. When lit was so open to the Tribunal to consider the  Scheme of Ibcon, the fact that the Government specifically referred for consideration the said Scheme, makes no difference.   At any  rate  the question covered by the 2nd Reference  was  a matter’ "connected with or relevant’ to dispute No. 3 of the 1st  Reference  and  hence the State  was  well  within  its jurisdiction  under  section  10(1) (d)  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act in passing the order dated January  18,  1964. The  High Court has referred to various decisions  regarding the  powers  of  the Government, when  making  a  reference,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

which,  in our opinion, it is not necessary to consider,  in the view that we take regarding the nature of the  reference dated January 18, 1964. 112 In the result, the judgment and order of the High Court  are set  aside.  The Tribunal will proceed to adjudicate on  the question  pending  before it regarding the revision  of  the existing production bonus scheme.  As the original reference itself  is of the year 1962, the Tribunal will give  a  very expeditious   disposal  to  this  matter.   The  appeal   is accordingly allowed.  There will be no order as to costs. G. C.                             Appeal allowed. 113