http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: THE WORKMEN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GREAVES COTTON & CO.  LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/08/1971

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1972 AIR  319            1972 SCR  (1) 373  1971 SCC  (2) 658

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Workers in supervisory capacity  getting less  than Rs. 500/per mensem-If they could raise a  dispute regarding wages which would take the salary beyond Rs. 5001- -When  workmen  can  raise  a dispute  about  the  terms  of employment of non-workmen.

HEADNOTE: This  Court, in appeal against the award of  the  Industrial Tribunal   in  disputes  between  the  appellants  and   the respondents, confirmed the wage scale and dearness allowance fixed  by  the  Industrial Tribnual  for  the  clerical  and subordinate staff, but set aside the wage scale and dearness allowance fixed for factory workmen and remanded the  matter to  the  Tribunal for fresh fixation.  When the  matter  was taken  up  by the Tribunal the workmen  contended  that  the dispute  regarding foremen or supervisors was, concluded  by the  judgment  of this Court on the ground  that  they  were included in subordinate staff.  The Tribunal, however,  held that the supervisors were not workmen within the meaning  of the  Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and hence the  claim  for revision  of  wages and dearness allowance payable  to  them should be rejected. In appeal by special leave to this Court, on the questions : (1)  Whether  the case of supervisors was  remanded  to  the Tribunal  for adjudication; (2) whether it was open  to  the respondents to contend for the first time after remand  that the  Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix the wage scale  and dearness  allowance of supervisors; (3) Whether  supervisors getting  less  than  Rs. 500/- per mensem  on  the  date  of reference  could  raise the dispute  regarding  wages  which would  take  their ’salary beyond Rs. 500  per  mensem;  (4) Whether,  if  the  supervisors  were  all  non-workmen,  the appellants  could  raise  a dispute  about  their  terms  of employment, and (5) whether in fact none of the  supervisors was  drawing less than’ Rs. 500 per mensem when  the  matter was  taken  up on remand and the  Tribunal  was,  therefore, right in rejecting the appellant’s claim for fixation of the wage scale and dearness allowance of supervisors. HELD  :  (1)  The  judgment of this  Court  shows  that  the subordinate   staff   and  factory  workmen   were   treated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

separately.  This Court in remanding the case of the factory workmen  had under contemplation all those workmen,  who  on the  date  of  reference, were  employed  in  a  supervisory capacity and drawing less than Rs. 500.  There is nothing in the remand order to warrant the submission that the case of- supervisors  was  included in the  category  of  subordinate staff, or, that it was not remanded. [381 C-D, F-H] (2)  It   was  open  to  both  parties  to  raise  all   the contentions  that were open to them, because, on remand  the wage structure of the factory workers, including basic  wage and  dearness  allowance, had to be  considered  afresh..  A reference to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the award, to which the special  leave was confined, showed that both  parties  were proceeding  on the basis that the Tribunal had  jurisdiction to  deal  with those supervisors who, under  the  Act,  were workmen. [382 A-C] (3)  The  Tribunal bad jurisdiction to consider revision  of wages,  dearness allowance and other emoluments so  long  as there is a category of 374 workmen who though employed in a supervisory capacity,  were drawing  less  than Rs. 500/-.  Even if they ask for  a  pay structure which takes their salary beyond Rs. 500/- that  by itself does not preclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine  what is the proper wage structure for that  class or category of workmen.  Once a Tribunal is vested with  the jurisdiction  to entertain the dispute it does not cease  to have  that jurisdiction merely because the claim  made  goes beyond  the wages which takes workmen out of  that  category and makes them non-workmen.  What has to be seen is  whether on  date  of reference there was any dispute in  respect  of workmen  which  could  be  referred under  the  Act  to  the Tribunal.   Therefore, supervisory staff drawing  less  than Rs.. 500/- per mensem cannot be debarred from claiming  that they should draw more than Rs. 500/presently that is, at the very  commencement  of inquiry or at Some  future  stage  in their service.  They can only be deprived of the benefits if they are non-workmen at the time they seek the protection of the Act. [383 F-H; 384 A-C G-H] (4)  Workmen  can  raise  a dispute in  respect  of  matters affecting  the  employment, conditions of  service  etc.  of workmen  as well as non-workmen, when they have a  community of  interest.  Such interest must be real and  positive  and not merely fanciful or remote.  But workmen cannot take up a dispute  in  respect  of a class of employees  who  are  not workmen and in whose terms of employment the workmen have no direct  interest  of their own., What interest  suffices  as direct  is  a  question of fact; but as long  as  there  are persons  in  the category of workmen in respect  of  whom  a dispute  has  been  referred  it cannot  be  said  that  the Tribunal has no jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact  that some  or  many  of them may become  non-workmen  during  the pendency of the dispute. [385 A-D; 387 H; 388 A-B] All  India  Reserve Bank of India Employees  Association  v, Reserve  Bank  of  India, [1966] 1 S.C.R.,  25,  Workmen  of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea  Estate, A.I.R.  1958 S.C. 353, Workmen v. Dahingeapara  Tea  Estate, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1026, Western India Automobile  Association v.  Industrial  Tribunal,  Bombay,  [1949]  L.L.J.  245  and Standard  Vacuum  Refining  Company India  v.  Its  Workmen, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 466, followed. (5)  In the present case, however, on the evidence, it  must be  held that when the matter was taken up on  remand  there were  no supervisors drawing less than Rs. 500/- per  mensem and  hence,  there were no employees who were working  in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

supervisory  capacity  who can be said to  be  workmen.   If there are no workmen of the category with respect to whom  a dispute  ,has been referred, the Tribunal cannot  be  called upon to prescribe a wage structure for non-existing  workmen nor  does it have jurisdiction to do so.  The  dispute  with respect  to them, must be deemed to have elapsed. [388  C-F; 389 G-H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  1239  to 1241 of 1966. Appeals  by  special leave from the Award dated  October  1, 1965  of  the Industrial Tribunal,  Maharashtra,  Bombay  in Reference (I.T.) Nos. 84, 112 and 121 of 1959. K.   T. Sule, M. G. Phadnis and Vineet Kumar, for the appel- lants (in all the appeals). G.   B.  Pai,  P.  N.  Tiwari  and  P.  K.  Rele,  for   the respondents (in all the appeals).  3 7 5 P.   Jaganmohan Reddy, J. These three Appeals are by the P.  Jaganmohan  Reddy,J.   These three appeals  are  by  the Workmen of the three Respondent Companies respectively-Civil Appeal  No.  1239 of 1966 is against Greaves  Cotton  &  Co. Ltd.,  Civil  Appeal  No. 1240 of 1966  is  against  Greaves Cotton  & Crompton Parkinson Pvt.  Ltd., (later  amalgamated in 1966 and a new Company formed as Crompton Greaves  Ltd.), and Civil Appeal No. 1241 of 1966 is against Kenyon  Greaves Pvt.  Ltd. On the 29th April 1958 a charter of demands was presented by the  Workmen  through their Trade Union Greaves  Cotton  and Allied  Companies Employees Union to the Respondents in  the above three Appeals and to Russian & Hornby India Pvt.  Ltd. These  demands were in respect of the wage  scale,  dearness allowance,  leave  gratuity  etc.   After  the  conciliation proceedings  under  sub-section  (4) of Section  12  of  the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the ’Act’). had failed, the disputes in respect of the aforesaid matters were  ultimately referred by the Maharashtra  Government  to Shri  P. D. Sawarkar for adjudication under Section  10  (1) (d)  read  with 12 (5 ) of the Act.  In respect  of  demands made  against Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., the  reference  was made  on  8-4-59  and 24-12-59;  against  Greaves  Cotton  & Crompton  Parkinson Pvt.  Ltd. on 30-5-59 and  24-12-59  and that against Kenyon Greaves Pvt.  Ltd., on 8-6-59 and 9-1-60 respectively.   We  are here not concerned  with  the  other references.  By an Award dated 3rd June, 15th and 16th  June 1960  the  Sawarkar  Tribunal revised the  wage  scales  and dearness   allowance  of  all  workmen  employed  by   those Companies.   Ruston  &  Hornby  India  Pvt.   Ltd.  appealed against the Awards to this Court which by a common  Judgment dated  14th  November  1963 held that  the  wage  scale  and dearness allowance fixed by the Industrial Tribunal for  the clerical   and  subordinate  staff  did  not   require   any interference  and to that extent dismissed the  Appeal.   It however  set  aside the wage scale  and  dearness  allowance fixed  for  factory workmen and remanded the matter  to  the Tribunal  for  fresh  fixation of wage  scale  and  dearness allowance with these observations :               "We  allow  the  Appeal with  respect  to  the               factory workmen and send the case back to  the               Tribunal   for  fixing  the   wage   structure               including  basic wages and dearness  allowance               and  for granting adjustments in the light  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

             the  observations by us.  The new  Award  pur-               suant to this Award will come into force  from               the same date namely April 1, 1959". When the references were taken up by the Tribunal on  remand the  parties  agreed that in view of the  decision  of  this Court certain 3 76 references stood finally disposed of namely references dated 24th  December, 1959 by the Workmen in Greaves Cotton &  Co. Ltd., and in Greaves Cotton & Crompton Parkinson Pvt.   Ltd. and  that  dated 9th January 1960 by the workmen  of  Kenyon Greaves Pvt.  Ltd.  The other three which were also held  to be finally disposed of were against the Workmen of Ruston  & Hornby  India Pvt.  Ltd. with which we are not concerned  in this  Appeal.  The parties however, agreed that  only  three references  dated  8th April, 1959, 30th May  1959  and  8th June,  1959  by workmen against Greaves Cotton &  Co.  Ltd., Greaves  Cotton & Crompton Parkinson Pvt.  Ltd., and  Kenyon Greaves Pvt.  Ltd. survive.  During, the proceedings  before the Tribunal two questions were raised               (1)   Whether  the Supreme Court remanded  the               matter  for  consideration of the  dispute  in               respect  of  certain categories  of  employees               including those of the Supervisors; and               (2)   Whether  it was open to the  Respondents               to claim fixation of service conditions on the               basis of individual units. On behalf of the employees it was contended that the dispute regarding  the Foremen or Supervisors who were  included  in the term subordinate staff was concluded by the Judgment  of the Supreme Court inasmuch as it had dismissed the Appeal in respect of Clerical and subordinate staff.  The employers on the  other hand contended that the reference was in  respect of  the six categories of Workmen specified in  the  Supreme Court Judgment which included Supervisors.  Shri Athalye who was the then Judge of the Industrial Court after hearing the parties made an order on 14th July 1964, inter-alia  holding :               (1)   That  the Companies were precluded  from               agitating  that wage scales in  the  different               factories  should  be fixed on  the  basis  of               individual units; and               (2)   that the Sawarkar Award was set aside by               this  Court in respect of all  workmen  except               those  who  could be  properly  classified  as               office   staff.    After   this   order    the               Respondents  were  asked  to  file  statements               regarding    comparative   wage   scales    of               Supervisors,  in their concerns as well as  in               other  concerns.  These statements were  filed               without prejudice to their contention that the               Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix wage scale               in   respect   of  Supervisory   staff.    The               documents   filed  on  behalf  of  the   third               Respondent  namely  Kenyon Greaves  Pvt  Ltd.,               showed that it did not employ any staff in the               Supervisory grade.  Thereafter the  references               were heard by Shri Paralkar who had  succeeded                             Shri Athalye as Judge,               377               Industrial Tribunal.  It was contended  before               him  that the Foreman (Supervisors)  were  not               workmen within the definition given in the Act               and  that  no wage scales in  respect  of  the               Supervisors in the Respondent Companies should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

             be  fixed.  The stand taken by  the  Appellant               was  that  it was not open to  the  Respondent               Companies  to raise the question  whether  the               Supervisors were Workmen within the meaning of               the  Act  as it did not arise  on  the  remand               orders made by this Court.  In the alternative               it  was contended that many Supervisory  work-               men,  concerned in the dispute were drawing  a               total  salary below Rs. 500 ’and that even  if               everyone   of  them  was  promoted  from   the               category  of  supervisors or for the  sake  of               argument   it  was  held  that   Foremen   and               Supervisory staff were not workmen within  the               meaning of the Act, the Workmen had a right to               raise  a  dispute  regarding  wage  scale  and               dearness  allowance of the  Supervisory  staff               because they have a communist of interest with               them.  The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction               to  entertain  the depute in respect  of  wage               scales   and   dearness   allowance   of   the               Supervisory   staff.    The   Appellant   also               contended  on behalf of the Workmen  that  the               only  question  that was  pending  before  the               Tribunal was to fix wages for factory  workmen               and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction               to  decide at that stage as to which  category               the workmen belonged. The Tribunal by its Award of the 1st October 1965 held after hearing the parties that Supervisors were not workmen within the  meaning of the Act and that the claim for  revision  of wage  scale  and dearness allowance payable to them  was  in that  view rejected.  Against this Award the  above  Appeals were  filed by Special Leave granted by this Court  confined only  to  the  point  whether  the  decision  contained   in paragraph 15 and 16 of the Award was correct. At  the  outset it was conceded by the  parties  that  Civil Appeal  No. 1241 of 1966 by the Workmen against  the  Kenyon Greaves  Pvt.   Ltd. did not survive because  there  are  no persons  working in the Supervisory capacities  and  drawing less  than Rs. 500/being the two conditions requisite  under Section  2  (s) (iv) of -the Act to be a  ’Workman  the  non fulfilment  of  which  would deprive  the  Tribunal  of  its jurisdiction  to  determine the dispute; and  therefore  the appeal has to be dismissed. Even  in  respect  of  the other  two  appeals  the  learned Advocate  for  the  Respondent submits  that  there  are  no workman  working in the Supervisory capacities  and  drawing less than Rs. 500/- in the 3 78 other two Undertakings in respect of which the Appeals  have been  filed and consequently they should also be  dismissed. We shall, however, deal with this submission later on. Before  us five contentions have been urged by  the  learned Advocate for the Appellant: First whether the case of Supervisors was at all remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication by the Supreme Court; Secondly  whether it was open to the Respondents to  agitate when the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, for the  first time  to challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal  to  fix wage scale and dearness allowance of the Supervisors; Thirdly whether Supervisors getting less than Rs. 500/-  per month  on the crucial date namely the date of reference  can raise  a dispute regarding wages which take them beyond  Rs. 500/-; Fourthly  whether  workmen can raise a  dispute  about  non-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

workmen,  as regards terms of employment of non-workmen  and in what circumstances. Fifthly  whether the Tribunal on remand is right in  holding that in December 1964, none of the Supervisors were  drawing less than Rs. 500/-. With  respect to the first two contentions  the  Appellant’s learned Advocate submits that in the Special Leave  Petition against  the Award passed by Mr. Sawarkar neither  the  wage scales   of   Supervisors  nor  any   question   about   the jurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal was raised nor  was  such  a contention urged before this Court in the Appeals which were partly allowed and remanded by this Court.  Even before  the Industrial  Tribunal, after the remand, when the  Respondent Companies  in  compliance  with  its  orders  dated  15-1-54 submitted  statements giving the names of workmen  including Supervisors  (Foremen) which were covered by  the  reference and  gave their details as called for by the said  Tribunal, the comments of the Appellants which were submitted on 27-2- 64 were that the category of Supervisors was not covered  by the  order  of  remand,  and the  wage  scale  and  dearness allowance  for  that category have been  confirmed  by  this Court by its judgment dated the 14th November 63.  This  was controverted by the Respondents and by further supplementary written  statement  dated 16-3-64, each  of  the  Respondent Companies, it is alleged, tried to cover up and reagents the matter  which  had  already  been  settled  by  this   Court regarding uniform service conditions -for the entire Greaves Cotton group of Companies on the basis that Greaves Cotton & Co., was the principal Company.  379 Even in these supplementary written statements it is alleged no  question was taken up by the Respondent  Companies  that the Foremen were not workmen within the meaning of the  Act. The Appellant had on 24-3-64 submitted an application to the Industrial  Tribunal stating that the supplementary  written statements should not be taken on record since the issue  in the  said supplementary statements regarding  uniformity  in the  wage scale and dearness allowance was decided  by  this Court.   It  also urged that the  issue  regarding  Drivers, Cleaners  and  apprentices and Supervisors  were  categories remanded  by the Supreme Court for fixing their  wage  scale should be decided as a preliminary issue. As we have already stated the Tribunal gave its decision  on the two issues which were raised before it after this  Court had remanded the matter.  On the other hand it is  contended by the Respondents that it is not open to the Appellants  to raise  this question because the Special Leave  having  been confined only to the point whether the decision contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Award is correct, it is open  to it  to urge that the Supervisors were not workmen.   It  was pointed out that from Paragraph 15 and 16 of the Award it is evident  that the demand for the revision of the wage  scale and  dearness  allowance  of the Supervisors  even  for  the lowest  grade -on the lowest scale made them non-workmen  as their  emoluments  exceed  Rs. 500/-,  which  decision  also clearly  indicates  that  the question of  fixation  of  the Supervisors  wage scale and dearness allowance was  remanded to  the Tribunal.  It is further stated that this Court  had in its Judgment dated 14th November 1963 allowed the  Appeal with respect to the ’factory workers’ and sent the case back top  the  Tribunal  for fixing the wage  structure  for  the ’factory  workmen’,  that  it is implicit in  the  order  of remand   that  the  Tribunal  would  have  jurisdiction   to determine whether any employee of the factory was or was not a  workman  within  the  meaning of the  Act;  that  if  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

Appellant’s  contention is accepted it would virtually  mean that this Court by its Judgment had conferred a jurisdiction on  the Tribunal to deal with the case of non-workmen  which the  Tribunal  under the Act did not possess; and  that  the question  whether  there is community  of  interest  between other  workmen of the Respondent and Supervisors who may  be non-workmen  is a mixed question of fact and law, which  has not been raised before the Tribunal and ought not be allowed to  be raised for the first time before this Court.   It  is also contended that the question whether some of the workmen could   raise  a  dispute  regarding  the  grades   of   the Supervisors as there is a community of interest was not  the subject  matter  of the decision in para 15 and  16  of  the -Award,   and  that  since  the  wages  including   dearness allowance of all supervisors at the date of the- Award  were in excess of 380 Rs.  500/-  the question of considering the  claims  of  the Supervisors   who  were  non-workmen  at  the  instance   of supervisors workmen ,does not arise. It  is  not in our view necessary to go into  these  several contentions  except to examine the scope of the Judgment  of this  Court  in  Civil Appeals Nos. 272-280  of  1962  dated 14-11-61 by which the remand was made to the Tribunal.   The order is in the following terms :               "We  therefore  dismiss the Appeal so  far  as               retrospective  effect and adjustments as  also               fixation of wages and dearness allowance  with               respect to clerical and subordinate staff  are               concerned.   We allow the appeal with  respect               to factory workmen and send the cases back  to               Tribunal   for  fixing  the   wage   structure               including  basic wage and  dearness  allowance               and  for granting adjustments in the light  of               the observations made by us. . . . ". The  Award of the Tribunal which this Court was  considering in the said appeals dealt with the clerical and  subordinate staff  -separately  from  the factory  workmen.   It  is  in respect  of the portion of the Award relating to Clerks  and subordinate  staff  that the appeal was dismissed  and  that dealing  with  the factory workmen  was  remanded.   Factory workmen  had  been  divided  into  six  categories  and  the employees  of the Respondents had been directed to be  fixed with separate wages for each category.  These six categories were: (i)  Unskilled. (ii) Semi-skilled I. (iii) Semi-skilled II. (iv)  Skilled I. (v)  Skilled II, and (vi) Skilled III. Apart  from this the Sawarkar Tribunal in para 58  said,  in those references it was concerned with the factory  work-men of  only  the  three Respondent  Companies;  that  different scales of wages prevail for different classes of workmen but which  categories  should be placed in which  class  is  not prescribed.   It  referred to the wage  scale  of  different classes of workmen prescribed by Shri Divatia in which apart from   the  above  six  categories,  three   categories   of Supervisors  grade  I,  II  &  III  were  also  given.   The Tribunal,  however,  while retaining  these  six  categories introduced a seventh category of higher unskilled, which  as this  Court observed was not justified because there  cannot be  degrees of want of skill among unskilled  class.   Apart from  this the main attack was on the wages fixed for  these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

six categories on the ground that  381 the  Tribunal completely overlooked the wages prevalent  for these  categories  in  concerns  which  it  had   considered comparable.  This.  Court observed "but the way in which the Tribunal has dealt with the matter shows that it paid  scant regard to the exemplars. filed before it and did not care to make the comparison for factory. workmen in the same way  in which  it had made comparison for clerical  and  subordinate staff.   In this circumstances wagescales fixed for  factory workmen  must  be set aside and the matter remanded  to  the Tribunal  to  fix wage scales for factory  workmen  dividing them into six categories as at present and then fixing  wage after  taking  into account wages  prevalent  in  comparable concerns..  The parties will be at liberty to lead  further’ evidence  in  this  connection".   It  is  clear  from  this judgment  that  the subordinates and factory  workmen  were, treated  separately and we cannot accept the  contention  of the learned Advocate for he Appellant that in dismissing the appeal  this  Court  had rejected  the  contentions  of  the Respondents relating to the Supervisors who according to  it were  included  in  the  category  of  subordinate:   staff. Earlier the Sawarkar Award had after noticing that there are 3 sub-divisions in the category of Supervisors laid down the scales  which  were higher having regard to  its  desire  to prescribe  the  same scales for the three  sub-divisions  as those  for skilled sub-division 1. It is also apparent  from the  statements’ filed that the Foremen or Supervisors  were divided  into  3 categories according to their  pay  scales. The pay of the Grade I was Rs. 360-20-500, of Grade Rs. 300- 15-360  and  of Grade III-Rs.  250-10-300.   The  Appellants themselves referred to these Supervisors as Foreman.   Work- men  under  Section 2 (s) (iv) of the Act means  any  person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled  or unskilled manual supervisory or technical  work, "but does not include any such person who being employed  in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 500/-  per mensem  or  exercise  either by the  nature  of  the  duties attached to the office or by reasons of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a -managerial nature".  This  Court in  remanding  the  case of the factory  workmen  had  under contemplation  all  those  workmen who on the  date  of  the reference  were  employed  in  a  Supervisory  capacity  and drawing  less than Rs. 500/- as these were included  in  six categories of workmen as classified by the Tribunal.  We  do not  think there is anything in the remand order to  warrant the  submission  that the case of Supervisors  was  included among  the category of subordinate staff or that it was  not remanded. After the remand the Tribunal was justified in holding  that this Court had set aside ’the Award of the previous Tribunal in  respect of all those workers who could not  be  properly classified   as  office  staff  in  which  the  Foremen   or Supervisors could not be Am L 1340 Sup CI/71 382 included.   It is also not the case of the  Appellants  that workers  who  were working in a  Supervisory  capacity  were classified  as  ,office staff.  In our view it was  open  to both the parties to raise all the contentions that were open to them because on remand the wage structure of the  factory workers  including basic wage -and their dearness  allowance had  to be considered afresh.  This conclusion is  supported by  the  fact  that parties were  given  liberty  to  adduce further evidence in respect thereto.  A reference to para 15 and 16 of the Award to which special leave is confined makes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

it clear that both parties were proceeding on the basis that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with those supervisors who  under  the Act are workmen.  The only  controversy  was whether the Tribunal could fix a wage scale, for them  which will  ultimately give them a total wage together with  basic pay  and  dearness allowance of over Rs. 500/- p.m.  or  fix scale  which  has an initial starting salary  with  dearness allowance in excess of Rs. 500/- p.m. which makes them  non- workmen and thus deprive it of jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.   It  may be of interest to  notice  the  arguments addressed before the Tribunal on behalf of the parties.  The contention by the Companies was that though the  Supervisors may  be  in  the  category of workmen at  the  time  of  the reference the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to  revise their  wages  and  grant  to them  at  any  stage,  a  total emoluments exceeding Rs. 500/as that would convert them into non-workmen.   On the other band on behalf of the  employees the  submission was that the Companies had not  raised  this question in appeal before the Supreme ,Court and in any case it  was ’not open to them to contend that the ’Tribunal  had no  jurisdiction to revise the wage scales of this class  as Shri Athalye in’ his order of 14-7-64 had on a consideration -of  the  Judgment of this Court held that the  question  of revision  of  the  wages  and  dearness  allowance  of   the Supervisors class was to be considered by that Tribunal.  In our view therefore, the ,dispute relating to the Supervisors wage  structure and dearness allowance could,  certainly  on the  plea of both employers and employees, be determined  by the  Tribunal.  The only question that could be  raised  and has been raised was whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to fix  wage  scales to go beyond Rs. 500/- and  whether  as  a matter  of fact there were any workmen at the time  -of  the dispute who were working in a supervisory capacity drawing a wage not exceeding Rs. 500/-.  The Tribunal noted that  Shri Phadke  for the Companies did not urge that the persons  for whom revision was sought are engaged in managerial functions or at the time the dispute arose were all non-workmen so  is to dis,entitle them to raise the dispute and to exclude  the jurisdiction of the Tribunal altogether.  If it were so, the Tribunal observed, the question must be deemed to have  been impliedly concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court and the interpretation put  383 there  were  persons  employed  in  a  Supervisory  capacity drawing  a wage not exceeding Rs. 500/- and who  as  workmen within  the  amended  definition  of  that  expression  were interested  in demanding scales which take them  beyond  Rs. 500/-.   But it was contended by the Companies that even  if the employees are entitled to raise the demand the  Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to grant it in a manner so as  to convert them into non-workmen. On  these contentions the Tribunal held that  although  ’the Supervisors  drawing a wage not exceeding Rs. 500/-  may  be entitled to raise the demand and ask for a scale which would take  them beyond Rs. 500/- they would not be  justified  in making  a claim for a scale which at the  very  commencement would  provide them with a wage in excess of Rs.  500/-.   A claim  for  Rs.  300/as basic wage for  the  last  grade  of Supervisors  together  with a claim for  dearness  allowance would  come  to an amount in excess of Rs.  500/-  and  thus convert  the Supervisors into non-workmen even at  the  very commencement.   Such  a claim, the  Tribunal  thought  would obviously  not  be  tenable  because  although  it  may   be permissible  on the grounds of social justice to revise  the wage  scale which may be justified by the  circumstances  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

the case it will not be permissible for the Tirbunal to  fix it so as to convert a workman into a non-workman. This  leads  us to the consideration of the  third  and  the fourth point urged before us namely whether the  Supervisors getting  less than Rs. 500/- per month on the  crucial  date which  is  the date of reference can raise the  dispute  for wages  taking them beyond Rs. 500/- and whether workmen  can raise a dispute about non-workmen.  In our view the Tribunal has  jurisdiction  to  consider  revision  of  wage   scale, dearness allowance and other emoluments so long as there  is a  category  of workmen who are employed  in  a  supervisory capacity  and drawing less than Rs. 500/-.  Even  where  the workman  in a supervisory capacity ask for a  pay  structure which  takes  them beyoned Rs. 500 that by itself  does  not preclude  its jurisdiction to determine what is  the  proper wage structure, for that class or category of workmen.   The view  of  the Tribunal was that though it  is  possible  for Supervisors who are workmen on the date of the reference  to demand  a  wage  scale beyond Rs. 500/- they  would  not  be justified  in making a claim for a scale which at  the  very commencement  would give them a wage in excess of Rs.  500/- so  as to take them out of the category of workmen and  make them  non-workmen.  The learned Advocate for  the  Appellant submits  that  merely  because  a  claim  is  made  by   the Supervisors for an initial wage in excess of Rs. 500/it does not imply that it will be granted or merely for that  reason deprive  the Tribunal of its -jurisdiction to pass an  Award in  respect  of  a wage which it considers to  be  fair  and proper.  There 384 is  no gain-saying the fact that once a Tribunal  is  vested with  the,  jurisdiction to entertain the dispute  which  is validly  .  referred,  it does not cease  to  continue  that jurisdiction  merely because the claim made goes beyond  the wage which takes workmen out of that category and make  them non-workmen.  What has to be seen is whether on the date  of the  reference  there  was any dispute  in  respect  of  the workmen  which  could  be  referred under  the  Act  to  the Tribunal.   In  any case can workmen raise a  dispute  about non-workmen  even  if  many or all of them  have  since  the reference become non- working ? In All India Reserve Bank of India  Employees  Association v. Reserve Bank  of  India,(1) this Court had occasion to consider these aspects.  In  that case  Class  11 and Class III staff of the Reserve  Bank  of India  through their Association and Class IV staff  through their Union raised an industrial dispute which was  referred ’by  the  Central Govt. to the Tribunal.  One of  the  items referred  concerned  scales of pay,  allowances  and  sundry matters  connected  with the conditions of  service  of  the three  classes, the most important ones being the demand  of Class  11 staff claiming a scale commencing with Rs.  500/-. The  Tribunal  held  that the Class II  staff  worked  in  a Supervisory capacity and this demand for a minimum salary of Rs. 500/-, if conceded, would take the said staff out of the category  of ’workman’ as defined in Sec. 2(s) of  the  Act. Such  an  Award, and any Award, carrying  wages  beyond  Rs. 500/- at any stage, was according to the Tribunal beyond its jurisdiction to make.  It also held that other workmen could not  raise  a dispute which would involve  consideration  of matters in relation to non-workmen and that it would be even beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Govt. to refer such a dispute under the Act.  The Tribunal therefore made no Award in regard to the Supervisory staff in Class IT. This  Court  held  that the Tribunal was  not  justified  in holding  that  if at a future time an incumbent  would  draw

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

wags  in the time scale in excess of Rs. 500/-,  the  matter must  be taken to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of  the Central Govt. to make a reference in respect of him and  the Tribunal  to  be ousted of the jurisdiction  to  decide  the dispute, if referred Supervisory staff drawing less than Rs. 5001  per month cannot be debarred from claiming  that  they should  draw more than Rs. 500/presently or at  some  future stage  in their service.  They can only be deprived  of  the benefits, if they are non-workmen at the time they seek  the protection  of the Act.  It was further held that in Sec.  2 (k)  of  the  Act the word person has not  been  limited  to ’workmen’ and must therefore receive a more general (1)  [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25.  3 8 5 meaning.   But it does not mean any person unconnected  with the disputants in relation to whom the dispute is not of the kind  described.   It  could not  have  been  intended  that although  the  dispute does not concern them in  the  least, workmen  are  entitled  to fight it out on  behalf  of  non- workmen.   But if the dispute is regarding employment,  non- employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour  of non-workmen   in  which  workmen  are   themselves   vitally interested  the workmen may be able to raise  an  industrial dispute.   Workmen  can for example raise a dispute  that  a class  of employees not within the definition  of  ’workmen’ should be recruited by promotion from workmen.  When they do so the workmen raise a dispute about the terms of their  own employment  though incidentally the terms of  employment  of those  who are not workmen is involved.  But workmen  cannot take up a dispute in respect of a class of employees who are not  workmen and in whose terms of employment those  workmen have no direct interest of their own.  What direct  interest suffices  is  a question of fact but it must be a  real  and positive interest.and not fanciful or remote.  Hidayatullah, J, as he then was, speaking for this Court concluded at page 45 thus :               "It   follows  therefore  that  the   National               Tribunal was in error in considering the claim               of  class 2 employees whether at the  instance               of  members  drawing less than  Rs.  500/-  as               wages  or at the instance of those lower  down               in  the  scale of  employment.   The  National               Tribunal  was also in error in  thinking  that               scales of wages in excess of Rs. 500 per month               at any stage were not within the  jurisdiction               of the Tribunal or that Govt. could not make a               reference  in  such a contingency.   We  would               have  been  required to  consider  the  scales               applicable  to those in Class 11 but  for  the               fact  that the Reserve Bank has  fixed  scales               which are admitted to be quite generous". The  case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate  v.  Management Dimakuchi  Tea  Estate, (q) was referred to  with  approval. There  the  majority S. R. Dass, C.J, S. K. Das, J.  (A.  K. Sarkar J, dissenting) had held that the workmen cannot raise a dispute in respect of a non-workman one Dr. K. P. Banerjee whose  services were terminated by the management by  paying him  one month salary in lieu of notice.  It  was  contended that Dr. Banerjee being not a workman his case is not one of an industrial dispute under the Act and is therefore  beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to give any relief to  him. The  matter  had  been referred to a  Board  known  as  ’the Tripartite (1)  A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 353. 386

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

Appellate  Board which recommended that Dr. Banerjee  should be  reinstated  from the date of his discharge.   Later  the Govt.  of Assam referred the dispute for adjudication  to  a Tribunal constituted under Sec. 6 of the Act.  The  Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to give any relief to  him. The  Appeal  to  the Labour  Appellate  Tribunal  of  India, Calcutta was also dismissed.  Special Leave was granted, but was limited to the question whether the dispute in  relation to  a person who is not a workman falls within the scope  of an  industrial  dispute  under Sec. 2(k) of  the  Act.   The majority  held  that where the workmen raise  a  dispute  as against their employer the               "person  regarding whom the dispute is  raised               must   be  one  in  whose   employment,   non-               employment, terms of employment or  conditions               of labour (as the case may be) the parties  to               the  dispute  have  a  direct  or  substantial               interest.....   Where  the  workmen  raise   a               dispute as against their employer the personregardin g      whose               employment, non-employment, terms ofemployment               or conditions of labour the dispute israisedneed               not be, strictly speaking, a ’workman’  within               the  meaning  of the Act, but must be  one  in               whose  employment,  non-employment,  terms  of               employment or conditions of labour the workmen               as  a  class  have  a  direct  or  substantial               interest". Applying   these  principles  the  majority  came   to   the conclusion that Dr. Banerjee who belonged to the Medical  or Technical  staff  was not a workman and the  Appellants  had neither direct nor substantial interest in his employment or non-employment and even assuming that he was a member of the same  trade  Union it cannot be said on the test  laid  down that the dispute regarding his termination of service was an industrial  dispute within the meaning of Sec. 2(k)  of  the Act.   S.  K.  Das, J, who delivered  the  judgment  of  the majority  in  the  above case also spoke for  the  Court  in Workmen  v. Dahingeapara Tea Estate.(1) In the  Dahingeapara case  on the sale of the Tea Estate as a going  concern  the purchaser continued to employ the labour and some members of the  staff  of  the vendor.  The question  was  whether  the dispute  raised by such workmen regarding the employment  of the  rest of the members of the old staff was an  industrial dispute.   It  was  held that it  was.   The  reference  was against  the  outgoing management as I well as  against  the incoming  management of the Tea Estate.  It may  be  noticed that under the agreement of sale an option was given to  the purchaser to continue in employment, the members of (1)  A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1026.  387 the staff. it also made the vendor liable for the claims  by the  members of the staff not so retained in service by  the purchaser.   In  these  circumstances it was  held  that  as between  the  vendor and the discharged workmen  the  latter came  within  the  definition of the workmen  as  they  were discharged during the pendency of conciliation  proceedings. This  fact  however,  did  not  make  them  workmen  of  the purchaser.  Even then they were persons in whose  employment or non-employment the actual workmen of the Dahingeapara Tea Estate  were directly interested.  The ratio of the  Western India   Automobile  Association  v.   Industrial   Tribunal, Bombay,(1)  as,  also of the later decision  in  Workmen  of Dimakunchi  Tea  Estate  v.  Management  (  2  )  was   made applicable  and  the dispute was held to be clearly  an  in-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

dustrial dispute within the meaning of the Act.  A reference is  made  to the Standard Vacuum Refining Company  of  India Ltd., v. Its workmen & Anr., (3) where the question relating to  the dispute arising out of the demand for the  abolition of the contract system of employing labour for cleaning  and maintenance work at the refinery including the premises  and plant belonging to it and for absorbing the workmen employed through  the  contractors into the regular  service  of  the Company  was  -considered.   The  Company  objected  to  the reference  on  the ground that : ( 1 )  it  was  incompetent inasmuch  as  there was no dispute between it and  the  Res- pondents,  and it was not open to them ,to raise  a  dispute with  respect to the workmen of some other  employer  namely the  contractor; and (2) in any case it was for the  Company to  decide  what  was the best method  of  carrying  on  its business and the Tribunal could not interfere with  function of the management.  The Tribunal held that the reference was competent  and that the claim was justified.  Following  the Dimakuchi  case  this  Court held that the  dispute  in  the present  case  was  an industrial dispute  because  (1)  the Respondents had a community of interests with the workmen of the contractor; (2) they had also a substantial interest  in the  subject  matter of the dispute in the  sense  that  the class   to   which  they  belonged,  namely   workmen,   was substantially  affected thereby, and (3) the  Company  could give  relief in the matter.  The conclusion of the  Tribunal that the contract system should be abolished was held to  be just  in  the circumstances of the case and  should  not  be interfered with. It  would therefore appear that the consistent view of  this Court  is  that non-workmen as well as Workmen can  raise  a dispute  in respect of matters affecting  their  employment, conditions  of service etc., where they have a community  of interests, provided they are direct and are not remote.   As stated in the (1) [1949] L.L.J. 245.(3) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 466. (2) A.  I. R. [1958] S.C. 353. 388 Reserve Bank of India’s case(1) "But workmen cannot take  up a  dispute  in respect of a class of employees who  are  not workmen and in whose terms of employment, those workmen have no  direct interest of their own".  At any rate as  long  as there  are persons in the category of workmen in respect  of whom a dispute has been referred it cannot be said that  the Tribunal  has no jurisdiction notwithstanding the fact  that some  or  many  of them may become  non-workmen  during  the pendency  of  the  dispute.   In  these  circumstances   the Tribunal  in our view was wrong in holding that the  dispute regarding Supervisors was not maintainable -merely because a demand  was made for a higher wage scale, which  would  take them  out  of  the category of workmen.   The  Tribunal  has jurisdiction to decide these matters because on the  crucial date the supervisors were workmen and merely because -of the demand  the  Tribunal  does not  lose  its  jurisdiction  to prescribe  the pay scales and the dearness allowance  either by  reason :of the fact that the maximum will go beyond  Rs. 500/-  or  that even the initial pay demanded will  be  more than  Rs. 500/-.  Provided that at the time of  adjudication there are some at least in the category who are workmen. But the question is if there are none at all and all of them have  become, non-workmen either during the pendency  or  at the  time  of adjudication, does the dispute  survive  ?  In other  words  -does  the dispute remain  a  dispute  between employers and workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Act?  These -questions arise out of the fifth contention

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

urged before us by the learned Advocate for the  Respondents namely whether in fact there are now any supervisors working in any of -the Companies because as the learned Advocate for the Respondent contends, if, they are none and they are  all non-workmen, the dispute lapses and at any rate the fixation of  a  wage  scale  for non-existing  workmen  would  be  an exercise   in  futility.   The  learned  Advocate  for   the Appellant contests this proposition on the ground that  even if there are no supervisor workmen working in the Companies, the matter should be considered by the Tribunal inasmuch  as any  pay  scale prescribed by it  would  have  retrospective operation as from the 1st of April 59 which what this  Court had  directed while remanding the case back to the  Tribunal in  Civil Appeals Nos. 272-280 of 1962.  For this reason  it is  said that those workmen who have since gone out  of  the category  of workmen ,or have retired or resigned  would  be entitled  to  the  benefit of the pay  structure  and  could recover  arrears..  In the Reserve Bank  case(")  a  similar situation  had  to  be considered.   The  reference  to  the National  Tribunal  was in 1960 and by the time  the  matter came to be decided all of them were getting wages in (1)[1966] 1 S.C. 25.  3 8 9 excess of Rs. 500/- per month and were non-workmen.  It  was held at page 46               "In  view  of the fact that all  of  them  now               receive at the start ’wages’ in excess of  Rs.               500/- per month, there is really no issue left               concerning them,, once we have held that  they               are working - in a supervisory capacity." In the result the Appeal was dismissed with the  observation that it would have partly succeeded but for the creation  of new  scales of pay for Class II employees and acceptance  of some  of  the  minor  points by the  Reserve  Bank.   It  is however, contended by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that in that case Mr. Chari had acknowledged at page 37 that the scales of pay which were awarded were as generous as the present  circumstances  of our country permit.  In  view  of this admission it is said that this Court made no order  and therefore  that  should not be taken into  consideration  in deciding  whether  the  matter should  be  remended  to  the Tribunal  for  fixing pay scales of  the  Supervisors.   The learned Advocate however ignored the observation immediately preceding the admission made by Mr. Chari.  It was  observed at page 37 "but more than this the minimum total  emoluments as  envisaged  by  the  definition of  wages,  even  at  the commencement of service of each and every member of Class II staff  on January 1, 1962 now exceed Rs. 500/- p.m. This  of course  was done with a view to withdrawing the whole  class from the ambit of the reference, because it is supposed,  no member  of the class can now come within the  definition  of ’workman’.  We shall, of course, decide the question whether the  resolution has that effect.  If it does,  it  certainly relieves  us  of the task of considering scales of  pay  for these employees for no remit is now possible as no  National Tribunal  is  sitting.   The scales have  been  accepted  as generous,  the dispute regarding scales of pay for Class  II employees  under the reference, really ceases to be  a  live issue".  The decision, therefore, must be understood in  the light  of  the  above observations.   The  reason  for  this conclusion  is that if there are no workmen of the  category with  respect  to  whom  a dispute  has  been  referred  the Tribunal cannot be called upon to prescribe a wage structure for non-existing workmen, nor does it have the  jurisdiction to do so.  The dispute in this sense must be deemed to  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

lapsed.   The  question therefore to be determined  in  this case  is whether as a matter of fact there are  any  workmen now  working in a Supervisory capacity who are drawing  more than Rs. 500/-, so that it would be futile for us to  direct the Tribunal to fix scales of Day and dearness allowance  in respect of a category of employees who are no longer workmen and with respect 3 90 to whom the reference can be said to have been withdrawn  as in the case of the Reserve Bank of India. In  ’Support  of this contention that there are in  fact  no supervisors at present who can be termed workmen in the  two Companies the learned Advocate for the Respondents asked for permission  to  file an affidavit which permission  we  gave with   liberty   to  the  Appellant  to  file   a   counter. Accordingly  the  Appellant,  has filed a  counter  and  the Respondents have submitted their rejoinders.  In paragraph 3 of  the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents  it  is stated  that  the Second Respondent Company  namely  Greaves Cotton  &  Crompton Parkinson Pvt.  Ltd.  (Crompton  Greaves Ltd).,  employed  15 employees in the Supervisory  cadre  as shown  in the statement filed in pursuance of the  Tribunals order dated 15-1-64 but as on the date of the affidavit only four  persons  remained in the Supervisory cadre  Grade  11. There are no person employed in other Supervisory grade.  It was.also pointed out that all these 4 employees were in  the Supervisory  Grade II and drawing a total salary as on  July 1971  exceeding Rs. 500/- a month.  In the annexure  to  the affidavit   the  reason  given  was  that  eachone  of   the Supervisors at the time when the statement was filedin January 1964 had ceased to be a Super- visor.  Out of the15 persons,  whose names were given, four resigned. 2  retired, one died two retrenched and two were, promoted as  Technical Assistants.  The remaining four of them are all drawing  per month a salary of Rs. 545/50 as Grade II Supervisors.  These are S/Shri Deshmukh, Gurbax Singh Kaslay and Pastakia. In so far as Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., is concerned, it was urged  that even on 1-1-64 as per Ex.  RC. 2 the only  three Supervisors  who had been working with them were  drawing  a salary  in excess of Rs. 500/- which will take them  out  of the  category  of  workmen.  These are G.  G.  Naik,  S.  S. Kulkarni, M. D. Gupte, who were on that date drawing a total salary   of   Rs.  505/-;  Rs.  581/73,   and   Rs.   545/58 respectively.   This statement was again reiterated  in  the rejoinder,  where it was stated that these were promoted  in 1965,  the latter two as Assistant Engineers and the  former as Superintendent Cone & tube plant. The  counter-affidavit  by  the Appellant sworn  to  by  the General  Secretary of the Greaves Cotton & allied  Companies Union   apart  from  containing  averments  which  are   not germanium  to  the  matter in issue does  not  traverse  the specific  statement  in respect of each one  of  the  Super- visors  nor  does  it  say  that  any  of  them  were  still supervisors drawing a salary of less than Rs. 500/-.  It was because  of  the  submission  of  the  learned  Advocate  on instructions that there are still some Supervisors  3 91 employed  by  the  Respondents who are  workmen  within  the meaning of Sec. 2 (s) of the Act, we had asked him to file a counter  giving the name of the person or, persons  who  are still working in that -capacity and their total  emoluments; but  we  find from the counter except for a bare  denial  no specific  averment as aforesaid has been made nor  does  the counter states categorically who are the persons who are now working  as  Supervisors and drawing less  than  Rs.  500/-.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

With the counter were annexed two statements Annexure ’A’  & Annexure  ’B’,  the former showing  supervisors  working  in Greaves Cotton & Crompton Parkinson Ltd., as on 30-5-59 with wage  drawn  by  -them  on that  date,  the  latter  is  the statement  showing list of Supervisors working in  the  said Company as on 1st October ’65 and the wage drawn by them for the  month of September, 1965.  Merely to state  that  there were  Supervisors  on 8-4-59 the day on which the  Govt.  of Maharashtra made the reference or in 1964 or 1965 or to  say that  even today there are Supervisors working in that  Com- pany or that the Industrial Tribunal went into the  question and gave its finding against the Company holding that  there were Departmental Foremen in the Factories of Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., does not advance the case any further than  what it  was  when  we  permitted the  Respondents  to  file  the affidavit. We  cannot therefore accept a mere denial in respect of  the crucial point whether today there are Supervisors working in the  Respondent  Companies  who are drawing  -a  basic  wage together with dearness allowance of less than Rs. 5001/-  as stated  in  the  affidavit  and  again  reiterated  in   the rejoinder.  The entire argument of the Respondents that  any decision  given by this Court would be otiose is based  upon the existence or non-existence of the said fact.  In view of the omission to state specifically in the counter the  names of  the  persons  who  as  of  now  are  still  working   as Supervisors  and drawing less than Rs. 500/- we  cannot  but hold  that the averments made by the Respondents that  there are no employees who are working at present in a supervisory capacity  and  who  can be said to  be  workmen,  have  been substantiated.   If  so,  for the reasons  given  the  issue lapses,  as such these appeals will be dismissed but in  the circumstances without costs. V.P.S.                                               Appeals dismissed 3 92