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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 392 1997

PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF ADDISONS PAINTS AND CHEMICALS LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: WORKMEN, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (A.P.  & C.) ASSISTANTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/12/2000

BENCH: S.R.Babu, S.N.Hegde

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J       J U D G M E N T

     S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.

     These  Appeals are against a Judgment dated 6th March, 1996.   The  parties will be referred to in the capacity  in Civil Appeal No.  410 of 1997.  Briefly stated the facts are as  follows:  The Appellant is the Union who is representing the  cause  of  a  workman  by  name  Nagarajan.   The  said Nagarajan   was  appointed  as  a  Trainee  Chemist  in  the Respondent  Company  on 25th May, 1962.  On  15th  February, 1973   Nagarajan  and  others   were  appointed  as   Junior Management Assistants on a consolidated pay.  They were then put  on  a service contract for 5 years.  On  17th  January, 1977  Nagarajan was transferred as Technical  Representative to Chennai.  In 1986 the Junior Management Assistants raised a dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.  By an  Award  dated  29th December, 1986 it was held  that  the Junior   Management  Assistants  were   workmen  under   the Industrial  Disputes  Act.  It was, however, held  that  the Sales  Representative would not be a workman.  On 25th July, 1988  Nagarajan  was transferred as a Sales  Representative. The said Nagarajan refused to accept the transfer and raised an   industrial  dispute  challenging   his  transfer  to  a non-workman  category.   This  dispute was referred  to  the Industrial  Tribunal  on 22nd December, 1989.  The  Tribunal rejected  this  demand  on  7th February,  1992.   The  Writ Petition  which was filed was dismissed on 23rd April, 1994. A  Appeal  was  filed  against the  dismissal  of  the  Writ Petition.   In  that  Appeal, on 16th  February,  1996,  the Management  gave  an  undertaking that  Nagarajan  would  be treated  as  a  technical  staff and  given  benefits  as  a workman.   We are informed that pursuant to this undertaking Nagarajan  has joined duty.  The Appeal came to be dismissed by  the  impugned Judgment dated 6th March, 1996.   However, the  Appellate Court directed the Respondent Company to  pay 25%  back  wages,  provided Nagarajan immediately  join  the duty.   Against  this  Judgment the Union  has  filed  Civil Appeal No.  410 of 1997 and the Respondent Company has filed Civil  Appeal No.  392 of 1997.  We have heard the  parties,

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

read  the  impugned Judgment as well as the Judgment of  the Single  Judge  and the Award of the Tribunal.  In our  view, there is no infirmity either in the Award or in the Judgment of  the  Single  Judge or in the Judgment  of  the  Division Bench.   The  employee Nagarajan had refused to  accept  the transfer  order  and  refused to report for duty  after  his transfer.  We see no substance in the contention that he was entitled  not  to join.  In our view the dispute could  have been  raised and agitated even after joining.  There was  no justification  for  not  reporting for duty.   In  spite  of Nagarajan  not having worked he has been awarded 25% of back wages.   This was within the discretion of the Court and  we see  no  reason  to  interfere.   At  the  request  of   the Appellants  in C.A.  No.  392 of 1997, they are granted time of  eight  weeks  from today to pay 25% of the  back  wages. Accordingly,  both the Appeals stand dismissed.  There  will be no Order as to costs.