Indian Oxygen Limited v. Udaynath Singh And Others

Vaidialingam, J.

1. In this appeal, by special leave, Mr. A. C. Mitra, learned counsel for the management appellant, challenges the award, dated 22 January, 1965, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, accepting a complaint, filed by the respondent, under S.33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act).

2. A request, made by the workmen of the appellant company, that carbide drums should be sold to them at concessional rates, was considered by the Works Committee, on 27 June, 1961 and acceded to by the companys representatives, who were present at the said meetings, along with the workers representatives, by expressing the companys willingness to sell carbide drums at concessional rates, once a fortnight, subject to availability of drums. It was also recorded at the said meeting of the Works Committee that not more than one drum, at a time, would be sold to an employee, at a reasonable interval. A copy of the minutes so recorded, is Ext. C-2. The company published a notice, Ext. B-2, on 12 July, 1961, indicating the price of the various types of drums, which would be distributed, twice a month, and that the sale to an individual employee would be on the understanding that the purchase was for his personal and private use.

3. Sometime later, a complaint was filed under S. 33-A, by some of the workmen of the appellant company, before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar alleging that the appellant company was guilty of contravention of Ss.9A and 33 of the Act. According to those workmen, the sale of drums, by the management, at a concessional rate, to the workmen, had become a part of their conditions of service, and that the company has committed a breach of the condition, by refusing to sell carbide drums at concessional rates, To sustain their complaint, the workmen relied on Exts. B-2, and C-2, referred to above. The claim of the workmen, in short, was that they always had been getting drums, at an interval of a fortnight, according to their requirements, and this condition, which has become a part of their conditions of service, was not being acted upon by the management.

4. The management, on the other hand, resisted the claim of the workmen. They pleaded that the sale of empty carbide drums, to the workmen, was really a matter of concession, and what was noted in the minutes of the works Committee, Ext. C-2, was in no sense a condition of service. The management further pleaded that the complaint under S. 33 was not maintainable, inasmuch as they has not altered any condition of service, applicable to the workmen, much less any condition of service, in regard to any matter connected with I.D.N. 32/63, which was pending adjudication.

5. The Tribunal has held that the sale of drums to employees, as mentioned in Ext. C-2, has become a condition of service, and that, by the refusal of the management to sell drums, it has altered the conditions of service of the workmen. The Tribunal, no doubt, holds that this condition of service is not connected with I.D. No. 32/63; but, nevertheless, it has taken the view that the management is not entitled to alter the conditions of service, except in accordance with the provisions of S.9-A of the Act. The Tribunal has interpreted the minutes of the Works Committee evidenced by Ext. C-2, and the notice, put up by the management, Ext. B-2, as entitling a workman to get one drum, every fortnight, as constituting an agreement between the parties, and as a condition of service. Ultimately, the Tribunal has upheld the claim of the workmen.

6. Mr. Mitra, learned counsel for the appellant, attacked the interpretation, put upon Exts. C-2 and B-2, by the Tribunal. Counsel urged that when once the Tribunal upheld the plea of the management that there had been, in any event, no alteration of the conditions of service, with regard to any matter connected with I.D. No. 32 of 1963, it should have rejected the complaint filed by the workmen under S. 33A, as not maintainable. The question of applicability of S. 9A, counsel urged, did not at all arise.

7. Mr. O. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent workmen, supported in full the various reasons, given by the Tribunal, for accepting the claim of the workmen.

8. In our opinion, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in construing what is contained in Exts. C-2 and B-2, as constituting an agreement between the management and the union. It has also further erred in holding that the matters, mentioned in Ext. C-2, had become part of the conditions of service of the workmen, and that, in the instant case, the management had committed a breach of that condition of service, by not selling carbide drums to the workmen.

9. Section3 of the Act deals with the constitution of Works Committee and its duties. This Court in North Brook Jute Company Limited v. Their Workmen has held that the duty and authority of Works Committee could not extend to anything more than making comments on matters of common interest, between the employers and the workmen and to endeavor to compose any material difference of opinion, in respect of such matters. It cannot, in the case before us, be held that the management, by acceding to a request made by the workmen, and evidenced by Ext. C-2, in any manner intended that the sale of carbide drums on a concessional basis, to the workmen should form part of the conditions of service of the workmen. Exhibits C-2 and B-2 clearly show that the management was only considering a request, made by the workmen, for sale of drums, as and when available, at concessional rates, and at reasonable intervals. There is no indication in these two exhibits that any obligation was, as such, imposed on the management, or of any right being vested in the workmen to compel the management to sell the drums to them.

10. We may also deal with the alternative contention of the management regarding the construction to be placed on Ext. C-2. The management, case, in this regard, is that there is no obligation cast upon them to sell empty carbide drums at concessional rates, as and when they were required by the employees, but, on the other hand, these drums were sold to the employees, at reasonable intervals, subject to availability. Their further case is that the sale of the drums is to be done in such a manner as to ensure an equal distribution among all the employees. We are satisfied that on a proper construction of Ext. C-2, the managements stand, in this regard, is correct.

11. Once it is held that the matters referred do in Exts. C-2 and B-2 do not form part of the conditions of service, it follows that, by the management declining to sell drums, it cannot be considered to have committed any alteration in the conditions of service, which is the very basis for a complaint under S. 33A. Section9A of the Act does not apply, as wrongly assumed by the Tribunal, because there is no alteration of condition of service. Even assuming that the sale of carbide drums, in the manner pleaded by the workmen is part of the condition of service, in this case the Tribunal has itself held that the said condition of service is not connected with I.D. No. 32/63. On this finding, the proper thing would have been for the Tribunal to dismiss, as not maintainable, the complaint, filed by the workmen, under S.33A of the Act.

12. For all the reasons given above the award of the Industrial Tribunal is set aside, and this appeal allowed. There will be no order as to costs.