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

PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATIONLTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/10/1975

BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. GOSWAMI, P.K. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1976 AIR  283            1976 SCR  (2) 189  1976 SCC  (1) 230

ACT:      Industrial dispute-Reference of dispute to arbitration- Settlement-Interpretation of its clauses.

HEADNOTE:      The  workmen   of  the  appellant  consisted  of  three categories: regular  staff, work-charged  staff  and  casual labour (muster-roll  employees). By a settlement between the parties, it  was agreed that certain questions like revision of pay,  etc., should be referred to arbitration. Before the settlement, however,  wages  of  muster  roll  workmen  were raised to  a minimum  of Rs.  3/- and in respect of the same category of  persons who  were drawing  Rs. 3/-  or more per day, the  rise was  50 paise per person. In the case of this category  of   workmen  there   had  also  been  an  earlier settlement in  1966. The  Industrial Tribunal, in its award, allowed an  increase of  25 per  cent in  the wages  of  all workmen including  the muster  roll workmen.  The  appellant sought to quash the award of the Tribunal but the High Court dismissed the writ petition.      Allowing the appeal to this Court, ^      HELD :  The wages of muster roll workmen was not one of the points  agreed to  be referred  to  the  arbitrator  for adjudication. The  Industrial Tribunal was acting beyond its jurisdiction in  allowing 25  per cent increase in the wages of the  muster roll  workmen. The only reason the Industrial Tribunal has  given is  that the  point under  reference  by itself did  not exclude  muster roll  workmen  and  that  it clearly mentioned  that the  parties  had  agreed  that  the demands regarding  the revision of pay scales of the workmen should be  referred to arbitration and no exception had been made against  the muster  roll workmen.  That clause  in the settlement should  be  read  along  with  the  rest  of  the settlement and  the charter  of demands. Had that been done, there would  have been no room for the misunderstanding. The revision of  pay scales  of  the  muster  roll  workmen  was already covered by the settlement. [192B; 191F-G]

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

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2163- 2164 of 1969.      From the  Judgment and Order dated the 17th March, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 477 and 479 of 1968.      F. S. Nariman, K. J. John and J. B. Dadachanji, for the Appellants.      J. N. Chaubey (In person) Respondent No. 1.      R. C. Prasad, for State of Bihar.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-The  appellant, the  National Projects Construction Corporation  Ltd., was  engaged in execution of two  projects,  Chandan  Dam  Project  and  the  Gandak  Dam Project. On  31st. January  1967 the N.P.C.C. Workers’ Union of the  Chandan Dam  Project gave  a notice of strike and on Ist April  1967 the  Labour Union  of the Gandak Dam Project gave a  similar notice.  These notices were accompanied by a charter of demands which are practically the same 190 in both  cases. Thereafter  a settlement was arrived at with both these Unions on 11-4-1967 in the presence of the Labour Commissioner, Bihar,  the terms  of which were also similar. By that  settlement certain  questions  were  agreed  to  be referred to  arbitration and  those questions  are found  in paragraph 4  of both  the settlements. The dispute with both the  Labour   Unions  was   accordingly  referred   to   the arbitration of  the Presiding  Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna  on 3rd  May, 1967.  The arbitrator’s award was sought to  be quashed  by means  of a writ petition filed by the appellant  before the  High Court  of Patna.  A Division Bench of  the High  Court dismissed the writ petition except in respect  of one  point which  is not  important  for  the purpose of  this appeal.  This appeal  is filed  against the judgment of  the Patna  High Court  by  way  of  certificate granted by the High Court.      The points canvassed before us were regarding the wages of the  muster-roll workmen  and the  project allowance  for them. In  the settlements  referred to  earlier the relevant portion regarding these workmen reads thus:           "Keeping in  view the  drought conditions  in  the      State  and   consequential  steep  rise  in  prices  of      commodities since  the wages  of workmen  in this  unit      were increased in the year 1966, management agrees that      no muster  roll workmen  will be paid less than Rs. 3/-      per day with effect from 11-4-1967.           Management agrees  to the  fat  increase  of  0.50      paise per  day per  workman in  the daily wage rates of      such muster  roll workmen  who are  getting Rs.  3/- or      above." In these two projects there were three categories of workmen (1) regular  staff, (2)  work-charged staff,  and (3) casual labour (borne  on muster-roll).  The regular staff consisted of  engineering,   administrative,  accounts   and  finance, supervisory as  well as non-supervisory personnel. The work- charged staff  was monthly  paid and  was of two categories, that is,  civil and  mechanical. The  casual workman was one whose employment  was of  an occasional or casual nature and was borne  on  the  muster-roll  on  daily  wages  for  such purpose. In  fact the  charter of demands by both the Labour Unions also makes clear this distinction between muster-roll employees, who  are called  daily rated  workmen,  and  work charged employees  and  regular  employees.  The  demand  in respect of the muster roll employees as far as the wages are concerned was that they should be given a minimum of Rs. 4/-

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

per day.  Another demand  was that the muster roll employees who had  served for 240 days must be brought on work charged cadre. By  the settlements  already referred to the wages of the muster-roll  workmen were raised to a minimum of Rs. 3/- and an  increase of 50 paise in the case of persons who were getting Rs.  3/- or  more earlier.  In respect of them there had also  been earlier  settlement in 1966. When, therefore, in clause  4 of  the settlement  it was  agreed that certain questions were  to be  referred to arbitration that can only be in  reference to  workmen other than muster-roll workmen. That clause in the settlement reads thus: 191           "4. Parties  agree for  reference of  the  demands      regarding revision of pay scales, introducing of C.P.F.      Scheme,  house   rent  allowance,  dearness  allowance,      project allowance, travelling allowance and security of      service of  workmen to  arbitration for  which they are      submitting separate  petitions as  required  under  the      Industrial Disputes Act and the rules framed thereunder      to  the   State  Government.  The  Arbitrator  will  be      requested to give his award within two months." As the revision of pay scales of the muster roll workmen was already covered  by the settlement the revision of their pay scales was  not one  of the  points agreed to be referred to arbitration. Nor  can the  question  of  introducing  C.P.F. scheme, house  rent allowance,  dearness allowance,  project allowance, travelling  allowance arise  in their  case.  The daily  rated   or  muster  roll  workmen  would  be  locally recruited workmen.      What the  Industrial Tribunal has done is to allow a 25 per cent  increase in  the wages  of  all  labour  including muster roll  workmen. The  result was  that the  muster roll workmen got  a double advantage, that is, the increase which they secured  as a  result of  settlement  and  the  further increase of  25 per cent granted by the Tribunal whereas the other categories  of  workmen  got  only  the  25  per  cent increase. It  appears that  before this settlement the daily rates of  muster roll  workmen were  Rs. 1.75 in Chandan Dam and Rs.  2.25 in  Gandak Dam.  As a result of the settlement they got  more than  40 per  cent which  was demanded in the charter of  demands in the strike notice in respect of other categories. In  that charter  what was  demanded for  muster roll workmen  was a  minimum daily  wage of  Rs. 4/-. In any case these things make it absolutely clear that the question of pay  scales of  the muster  roll workmen was decided as a result of  the settlement  and  that  was  not  one  of  the questions  referred   to  the   arbitrator.  The  Industrial Tribunal was  therefore acting  beyond its  jurisdiction  in allowing a  25 per  cent increase in the wages of the muster roll workmen.  The only  reason the  Industrial Tribunal has given for  holding that the wages of the muster roll workmen was also  a matter  referred to  it is  that the point under reference by itself does not exclude muster roll workmen and that it  clearly mentions  that the  parties had agreed that the demands  regarding revision  of pay  scales etc.  of the workmen should  be referred  to arbitration and no exception has been  made against  the muster  roll workmen. As we have already  pointed   out  this  is  a  wrong  reading  of  the reference. That  clause in  the settlement  should  be  read along with the rest of the settlement and charter of demands and if  that had been done there would have been no room for this misunderstanding.      On the  other hand  the only  point relied  upon by the High Court  for holding  that the  wages of  the muster roll workmen was also one of the items referred to arbitration is

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

that the  reference in  the  case  of  Chandan  Dam  Project mentions all  the  two  thousand  workmen  employed  in  the project as  workmen affected or likely to be affected by the dispute. But  it failed to notice that the similar agreement in 192 respect of  Gandak Dam  Project does not refer to the number of workmen  involved at all. Therefore no distinction can be made between  the two  cases on this ground. The document by which the  reference is  made is  in a  standard from  which mentions  the  total  number  of  workmen  employed  in  the undertaking affected  and the  estimated number  of  workmen affected or  likely to be affected by settlement. In filling those columns  the parties  may or  may not necessarily take into consideration  the number  of  workmen  whose  case  is already covered  by the  settlement and no argument could be built upon the basis of the entries in those two columns. We are therefore  clearly of  the opinion that the wages of the muster roll  workmen was  not one of the points agreed to be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication.      As  regards   the  project   allowance  the  Industrial Tribunal took  the view  that the  mere fact  that the  work charged staff  and the muster roll staff are appointed for a particular work  and some  of them happen to be local people should not  stand  in  the  way  of  their  getting  project allowance and those of these two classes of workmen who come from distant  places should  be given  this allowance in the same way as the members of the regular staff. The Industrial Tribunal itself  realises that  the basis  on which  project allowance is  granted to  the regular staff is to compensate them for depriving them of the amenities posting them to out of the  way places during construction periods. Once that is admitted the question of giving the work charged workmen and the muster  roll workmen,  who do  not have  a regular place where they  are expected to work and in whose case therefore there is no question of their being posted to any place, any project allowance  would not  arise. The question of posting can arise only in the case of regular staff. Moreover, it is difficult  to  check  in  each  case  who  among  those  two categories of  staff have come on transfer from other places and belong to places more than 50 miles away. Also there can be no  question of  work charged  workmen  and  muster  roll workmen coming  on transfer. This part of its order seems to arise out  of a  confusion of  thought on  the part  of  the Industrial Tribunal.  On the  other hand  it cannot  be said that no  question regarding  muster roll  workmen was at all referred to  arbitration. Clause 4 is all comprehensive. One item in the charter of demands was project allowance for all workmen and the settlement covered only wages for the muster roll workmen. The High Court has not dealt with the question of project  allowance at  all. Apparently  this question was not urged  before the  High Court.  Nor is  it raised in the petition for  leave. Before  us only the question of project allowance granted  to muster  roll workmen  was  challenged. There is therefore no justification for interfering with the award of  the Industrial  Tribunal in so far as the question of project  allowance is  concerned even  though it  may  be difficult to work it in practice.      In the  result therefore the award of the Arbitrator is set aside  insofar as it granted a 25 per cent wage increase to the  muster roll  workmen. There  will be  no order as to costs. P.B.R.                                      Appeals allowed. 193

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