Addison Paints And Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Association v. Addison Paints And Chemicals Ltd., Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Writ Appeals Nos. 787, 788 and 802 of 1992 and Writ Petitions Nos. 12476 and 13814 of 1993

Advocates

Sri N.G.R Prasad and Sri Sanjay Mohan.
Sri A.S Venkatachalamoorthy.

Judges

Sri K.A Swami, C.J
Sri T. Somasundaram, J.

Acts

Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or(ii)
SALES PROMOTION EMPLOYEES CONDITIONS OF SERVICE ACT 1976
Amendment Act 46 of 1982, the Legislature by the Amendment Act 48 of 1986
S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
Section 1(4) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT 1947
Act prior to Amendment Act 46 of 1982
S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
Amendment Act 46 of 1982,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

These matters arise from Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras by the Government of Tamil Nadu (G.O.Ms No. 2313 dated 2 November 1984). The disputes concern demands by a group of employees designated "Junior Management Assistants" (represented by the Junior Management Assistants' Association) against their employer, Addison Paints and Chemicals Ltd., Madras, covering a list of 22 issues (including legality of a lockout, payment of dearness allowance, fixation of pay scales, house rent allowance, incentive payments, and various allowances and facilities).

The Industrial Tribunal issued an award on 29 December 1986 addressing the 22 issues. The Tribunal's findings on issues (2), (3) and (6) (dearness allowance, fixation of pay scales, and house rent allowance) were later set aside by a Single Judge (Raju, J.) and remanded for fresh disposal; S. Ramalingam, J. earlier modified the Tribunal's order on the lockout (issue 1) by directing additional payment of wages. On remand the Tribunal passed a fresh award dated 31 December 1992 granting dearness allowance, prescribing pay scales for certain designations and directing house rent allowance with effect from 1 November 1984, and fixing fitment and service weightage rules.

Multiple writ appeals and writ petitions followed: Writ Appeal Nos. 787, 788 and 802 of 1992 and Writ Petitions Nos. 12476 and 13814 of 1993 challenge various aspects of the Tribunal's awards and the Single Judge's order. The present judgment, delivered by Somasundaram, J., disposes of those common appeals and petitions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the service contracts entered in 1973 by members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association with the management are unjust, illegal and unenforceable, and whether those members are bound by those contracts.
Whether junior management assistants who have enjoyed benefits under the service contracts can be permitted to repudiate those contracts and claim pay-scales, dearness allowance and house rent allowance available to non-junior management assistant workmen.
Whether the Single Judge's order dated 8 April 1992 (setting aside the Tribunal's findings on issues (2), (3) and (6) and remanding those issues for fresh disposal) was correct.
Whether the Tribunal's award dated 31 December 1992 (granting dearness allowance, fixing pay-scales, and granting house rent allowance with effect from 1 November 1984) is correct.
Whether the wage scales fixed in Paras. 34 and 36 of the Tribunal's 31 December 1992 award are correct in basis and method.
Whether members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association are entitled to the benefits of the Exhibits W.81 and W.89 settlements.
Whether the Tribunal's award applies to junior management assistants who subsequently resigned from the Association or who accepted further promotions and opted to retain them.
Whether a sales representative (specifically the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992) is a "workman" within S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly after the 1982 amendment adding "operational" to the definition.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant / Management (Addison Paints and Chemicals Ltd.)

The junior management assistants voluntarily entered into individual service contracts in 1973, received consolidated salary with annual increments and promotional opportunities, and accepted that certain allowances would not apply to them.
Because they voluntarily accepted the contract benefits for many years, they are estopped from repudiating those contracts to claim pay-scales, dearness allowance and house rent allowance.
The Tribunal should not upset the entire contract system; at most it can award enhanced consolidated pay but cannot substitute a pay-scale regime when employees accepted contracts.
The settlements under Exhibits W.81 and W.89 do not apply to junior management assistants who were not parties to those agreements.
Regarding sales representatives: even with the 1982 amendment, sales representatives (whose main work is canvassing for sales) are not "workmen" under S.2(s), and the Sales Promotion Employees Act operates to regulate their conditions.

Respondent / Junior Management Assistants' Association

The Tribunal originally found junior management assistants to be workmen and that finding was not challenged by the management.
The contract system (consolidated pay without dearness allowance) produces stark disparity compared to non-junior management assistants doing the same work; the flat periodic increments are not an adequate substitute for dearness allowance and pay-scales.
The junior management assistants should be treated on par with other workmen with respect to pay-scales, dearness allowance and house rent allowance, and their demands should be given retrospective effect (the Association advanced 1973 but later limited its specific claim to 1984).
As to the correctness of pay-scales fixed on remand, the Tribunal erred in not disclosing the basis for the particular scales and in not ensuring fitment that preserves prior basic pay and increments of those who had earlier been non-junior management assistants.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (Supreme Court)	Employment contracts cannot be equated to mercantile transactions; Courts/Tribunals can scrutinise and set aside employment terms that are unfair or exploitative.	Cited to support the proposition that service contracts between employer and employees can be investigated and declared unenforceable if unjust; used to reject estoppel argument.
Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Barrel Employees Union (Supreme Court)	Some disputes (wage-structure, service conditions) may be re-agitated as circumstances change; res judicata has limited application in such cases.	Relied upon to indicate that demands about wages/service conditions can be reopened when new circumstances arise.
Workmen of Balmer Lawrie & Co. v. Balmer Lawrie & Co.	Illustrative of class of cases where disputes regarding wage-structure and service conditions can be re-agitated.	Referred to (via Bharat Barrel) as an example supporting the proposition that wage-structure disputes may be re-opened.
Associated Cement Staff Union v. Associated Cement Co.	Also an example of cases where service condition disputes permit re-agitation.	Referred to in the same context as Balmer Lawrie to illustrate the category of disputes not barred by res judicata.
May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen (A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 678)	Sales representatives whose duties are mainly canvassing and promotion are not "workmen" under S.2(s) when manual/clerical duties are only incidental.	Applied to hold that sales representatives whose main work is canvassing for sales are not workmen under S.2(s) (pre-1982 amendment) and to assess the nature of duties for classification.
Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. v. Burmah-Shell Management Staff Association (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 922)	For a person to be a "workman" he must be employed to do manual, clerical, technical, supervisory or skilled/unskilled work; sales-type canvassing duties are not within these categories.	Relied on in reaching the conclusion that sales representatives are not workmen under S.2(s).
T.P. Srivastava v. M/s National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. (Supreme Court)	Where duties require imaginative/creative work in canvassing and promotion, such work is not manual, clerical, technical or supervisory and therefore not that of a "workman".	Quoted to show that sales promotion duties typically fall outside the S.2(s) categories and support the conclusion that sales representatives are not workmen.
S.G. Pharmaceuticals v. V.D. Padamwar (Bombay High Court)	Medical representative whose principal function is canvassing for promotion of sales is not a "workman".	Referred to as consistent authority holding medical/sales representatives outside the definition of "workman".
Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court)	Sales/medical representatives by nature of duties do not fall within S.2(s) definition of "workman".	Referred to as supporting the view that sales representatives are not workmen even after consideration of the 1982 amendment.
S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (Supreme Court)	Discusses the broad sweep of "workman" and that the definition should capture the labour force while excluding managerial force; decisions depend on factual matrix.	Cited by counsel for differing views; the Court observed S.K. Verma's observations must be read in light of its facts and cannot be taken as overruling Baker/ Burmah-Shell line.
A. Ram Mohan v. Labour Court, Bangalore (Karnataka High Court)	Single Judge decision holding a sales promotion representative to be a "workman" (relied upon by appellant counsel).	The Court declined to follow that Single Judge's reasoning and observed that the judgment was reversed on appeal by a Division Bench in that matter; it was not persuasive here.
Promer Sales (P) Ltd. v. Manohar Sondhur (Bombay High Court)	Decision relevant to classification of sales promotion employees.	The Court rejected reliance on this decision for the proposition that sales representatives are workmen and did not accept its reasoning in the present facts.
Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu (Supreme Court)	Reiterated that to be a "workman" a person must (i) be employed in an industry for hire or reward, (ii) do work of types enumerated in S.2(s), and (iii) not fall under exclusion clauses.	Cited to reinforce the statutory conditions that define a "workman" and to support the conclusion regarding sales representatives.
D.S. Nagaraj v. Labour Officer, Kurnool	Supportive authority on the nature of duties and the relation to the "workman" definition.	Referred to in the discussion on the nature of sales promotion duties and the non-applicability of S.2(s) categories.
J.J. Dechane Distributors v. State of Kerala	Authority referenced alongside other cases to show canvassing/ promotion duties are not of S.2(s) categories.	Used to support the proposition that promotional/canvassing work lies outside the statutory categories of workman.
Nirchiliya v. Safire Theatre (Madras)	Case cited by counsel in support of inclusion of sales promotion employees.	Mentioned as part of the corpus of decisions relied upon by appellant counsel but not accepted by the Court for the proposition that sales representatives are workmen.
Mavatta Beedi, Thozhilalar (CITU) Sangam v. (Five Number) Beedi Factory	Decision cited by counsel in support of sales representative coverage under industrial law.	Cited by counsel for the appellant; Court did not adopt it as controlling in the present facts and analysis.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded issue by issue, following the points framed in the judgment.

On the fairness and enforceability of the 1973 service contracts (Points (i) and (ii)):

The Court compared the emoluments and service benefits of junior management assistants (JMAs) under their consolidated-salary contracts with those of non-junior management assistants (who received pay-scales, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and other benefits). Evidence (witnesses W.W.1, W.W.2, W.W.5 and exhibits W.96, W.98–W.101, W.99 etc.) demonstrated that JMAs' consolidated wages (with small ad hoc increases and fixed increments) were substantially lower than the total emoluments of non-junior management assistants doing the same work, sometimes less than unskilled workers (e.g., sweepers).
The Tribunal's factual findings about the wage disparity and the inadequacy of flat-rate increments were accepted by the Court. The Court held that the Tribunal's later finding (on remand) that the contract system is unfair, unjust and unenforceable is supported by acceptable evidence.
The Court rejected the management's estoppel argument. It relied on authority (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation) and on the settled position that Courts/Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act can examine whether service contracts with workmen are unfair and declare such contracts non-binding.
Result: the JMAs are not bound by the 1973 contracts; they can claim the benefits (pay-scales, dearness allowance, house rent allowance) available to non-junior management assistants.

On the Single Judge's remand (Point (iii)):

The Single Judge had set aside the Tribunal's rejection (29 December 1986) of issues (2), (3) and (6) on the ground that the Tribunal over-emphasised the paying capacity of the management and had not examined whether the individual contracts were fair.
Given the Court's finding that individual contracts were unfair and unenforceable, the Single Judge's order remanding those issues to the Tribunal for fresh disposal was held to be correct and was affirmed.

On the Tribunal's award dated 31 December 1992 (Point (iv)):

The Tribunal on remand declared the JMA contract system illegal and directed that JMAs be paid dearness allowance at the usual rate/formula applicable to Madras with effect from 1 November 1984; it prescribed wage-scales for various designations (paras. 34–36) effective the same date; and directed house rent allowance at rates applicable under Exhibit W.89 from 1 November 1984.
The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in granting relief with effect from 1 November 1984 (the date proximate to the Government's reference, and consistent with the claim statements and conduct of parties). Therefore the award insofar as it grants dearness allowance, pay-scales and house rent allowance from 1 November 1984 was upheld in principle.

On the specific pay-scales fixed by the Tribunal (Points (v) and (vi)):

The Court found that the Tribunal did not adopt a proper procedure in fixing the particular pay-scales: it should have taken the basic pay each JMA drew as non-junior management assistant on the date he entered service, adjusted increments and fitment as on 2 November 1984, and fitted them into appropriate steps so as not to leave long-serving employees worse off.
Because there was no consensus between the parties as to the basic pay each JMA drew when first entering service (and the charts tendered were disputed), the Court could not itself fix correct pay-scales. Consequently, the Court set aside Paras. 34 and 36 (the specific scales) and remitted the limited question of fixation of pay-scales to the Tribunal to determine the correct scales as on 2 November 1984, and directed the Tribunal to proceed on the basis that the JMAs are entitled to the benefits of Exhibits W.81 and W.89.

On application to members who resigned or accepted promotion (Point (vii)):

The management produced resignation letters (Exhibit M.77 series) and affidavits from 23 JMAs disclaiming interest in the dispute and confirming acceptance of the earlier award. The Tribunal had doubted genuineness of those resignations but the Court found no basis to doubt them.
Accordingly the Court held that the Tribunal's award of 31 December 1992 will not apply to those JMAs who genuinely and voluntarily resigned from the Association or who accepted promotions and opted to retain the benefits of their contracts; further, no person may receive benefit both under the award and under the original JMA contract.

On issues in Writ Appeal No. 787 (lockout and incentive payments etc.):

Lockout: S. Ramalingam, J.'s earlier order directed payment of an additional 50 days' wages and declared the strike not illegal and that there would be no break in service. The Court held that the 50 days' wages so directed are not merely ad hoc and must be taken into account for provident fund, gratuity and bonus calculations.
Incentive payments (issue 4): Because JMAs are held to be workmen and entitled to parity with non-junior management assistants, they are entitled to incentive payments as applicable to unionised non-junior management assistant workmen.
Vehicle/outstation allowances (issues 9 and 19): No evidence showed non-junior management assistants were receiving such benefits; Tribunal and Single Judge rightly rejected these claims.

On whether a sales representative is a "workman" (Writ Appeal No. 788):

The Court examined prior authorities (May & Baker, Burmah-Shell, T.P. Srivastava and others) and the nature of the sales representative's duties (admitted by the sales representative as canvassing, booking orders and promoting sales).
Although the 1982 amendment added the word "operational" to S.2(s), the Court considered the ordinary meanings of "operational" and "operative" and concluded that promotional/canvassing duties are not "operational" in the statutory sense; prior jurisprudence consistently treated sales/medical representatives as outside S.2(s) categories because their main duties are promotional rather than manual/clerical/technical/supervisory.
The Court therefore held that the addition of "operational" and related 1982 amendments did not make sales representatives "workmen" under S.2(s). Consequently the Single Judge's finding that sales representatives are not workmen was upheld.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings

Service contracts void as to binding effect: The individual junior management assistants' service contracts of 1973 were held to be unjust, illegal and unenforceable; the members are not bound by those contracts.
Entitlement to parity: Junior management assistants who did not resign or accept promotions are entitled to dearness allowance, regular pay-scales (to be fixed by the Tribunal), and house rent allowance on the same terms as non-junior management assistant workmen, with effect from 1 November 1984.
Remand for pay-scale fixation: The Tribunal's specific fixation of pay-scales in Paras. 34 and 36 of the 31 December 1992 award was set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of determining proper pay-scales as on 2 November 1984, taking into account basic pay and increments as if the concerned employees had remained non-junior management assistants.
Lockout wages to count: The additional fifty days' wages directed by S. Ramalingam, J. are to be treated as wages for the purposes of provident fund, gratuity and bonus.
Sales representatives not workmen: Sales representatives whose primary duties are canvassing for sales are not "workmen" within S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act even after addition of the word "operational" by the 1982 amendment; Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992 dismissed.
Limited personal exclusions: The Tribunal's award does not apply to JMAs who voluntarily resigned from the Association or who accepted promotion and retained benefits under the contract system.

Direct Effects and Consequences

The management's Writ Appeal No. 802 of 1992 was dismissed.
Writ Petitions Nos. 12476 and 13814 of 1993 were partly allowed: the Tribunal's mode of fixation (Paras. 34 and 36) set aside and remitted for limited recalculation; otherwise the Tribunal's award dated 31 December 1992 was confirmed. The Tribunal was directed to decide the limited remitted questions within three months from 4 April 1994.
Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992 was partly allowed: the Court directed that the 50 days' wages be taken into account for provident fund, gratuity and bonus, and that JMAs are entitled to incentive payments like non-junior management assistant workmen; otherwise the appeal dismissed.
Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992 (sales representative issue) was dismissed.
No order as to costs was made.

The opinion does not claim to establish a novel legal principle beyond the application of existing authorities; it applies settled principles to the facts and remits an evidentiary and arithmetic task (fixation of pay-scales as on 2 November 1984) to the Tribunal. No broader precedent-making declaration beyond the conclusions described above was expressly made in the opinion.

Show full summary ...

Addison Paints And Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Association v. Addison Paints And Chemicals Ltd.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Somasundaram, J.:— As the parties to the above writ appeals and writ petitions are common and the points raised and submissions made are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Writ Appeals Nos. 787, 788 and 802 of 19921 arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge, dated 8 April 1992, disposing of Writ Petitions Nos. 3419 of 1987 and 1679 of 1989. The dispute in all these matters is between the Management of Addison Paints and Chemicals, Ltd., Madras 11, and its workmen represented by the Secretary, Addison Paints and Chemicals, Ltd., Assistants' Association (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the management and Junior Management Assistants' Association respectively). The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13814 of 1993 is the Junior Management Assistants' Association and appellant in Writ Appeal No. 802 of 1992 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12476 of 1993 is the management.

3. The Industrial Tribunal, Madras, on a reference by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour Department in G.O.Ms No. 2313, dated 2 November 1984, took the industrial dispute on file in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 for adjudication on the following issues:

“Issue No. 1: Whether the lockout imposed by the management on the 69 persons listed in the Annexure II consequent on their refusal to give individual undertaking as required by the management and the denial of employment from 18 June 1984, is justified; If not, to what relief they are entitled.

Issue No. 2: Whether the demand for payment of dearness allowance based on cost of living index is justified; if so to fix the rate and date from which it should given effect.

Issue No. 3: Whether the demand for fixation of sales of pay for various categories of assistant is justified; if so to fix—

(a) scales of pay;

(b) manner of fitment; and

Issue No. 4: Whether the demand for extension of incentive payments to assistants is justified; if so to give appropriate direction.

Issue No. 5: Whether the demand for providing mess facilities or alternative arrangements to assistants is justified; if so to give appropriate directions.

Issue No. 6: Whether the demand for payment of house rent allowance is justified; if so to fix the rate and the date from which it should be given effect to.

Issue No. 7: Whether the demand for grant of leave travel allowance is justified; if so to give appropriate direction.

Issue No. 8: Whether the demand for payment of conveyance allowance is justified; if so to fix the rate and date from which it should be given effect to.

Issue No. 9: Whether the demand for vehicle allowance and payment of vehicle maintenance allowance outdoor assistants is justified; if so to give appropriate direction.

Issue No. 10: Whether the demand for supply of three sets of terricotton uniforms every year is justified.

Issue No. 11: Whether the demand for supply of one pair of shoes every year is justified.

Issue No. 12: Whether the demand for grant of interest free vehicle advance/loan is justified.

Issue No. 13: Whether the demand for grant of festival advance is justified; if so to give appropriate direction.

Issue No. 14: Whether the demand for encashment of leave at credit once in three years is justified; if so to give appropriate directions.

Issue No. 15: Whether the demand for free supply of coffee with snacks twice a day for all the assistants at head office and regional office is justified; if not to what relief may are entitled.

Issue No. 16: Whether the demand for introduction of group insurance scheme for assistants is justified; if so to give appropriate directions.

Issue No. 17: Whether the demand for revision of batta to travelling assistants is justified; if not to what relief, they are entitled.

Issue No. 18: Whether the demand for supply of brief case, pen-set, rain coats, sun-glass, winter-dress for field assistants every year is justified; if as to fix the scale of supply.

Issue No. 19: Whether the demand for outstation allowance is justified; if so to give appropriate direction.

Issue No. 20: Whether the demand for providing recreational facilities to the assistants is justified; if so to give appropriate direction.

Issue No. 21: Whether the demand for payment of lunch allowance to those who work in the office during lunch hours and to those who go out on duty is justified; if so to fix the rate and date from which it should be given affect to.

Issue No. 22: Whether the demand for payment of reserve holidays to the assistants as given to other workmen is justified; if so to give appropriate direction.”

4. The averments in the claim statement filed by the Junior Management Assistants' Association in Industrial Disputes 83/84 are as follows: The Junior Management Assistants' Association representing employees desingnated as junior management assistants of the management was formed in September 1983. The posts of junior management assistants were created by the management in 1973. These posts comprised three groups, namely:

(1) Administrative assistants;

(2) Technical assistants; and

(3) Research and development assistants. Similar post of assistants continued to exist as distinct cadre as non-junior management assistants who are differently treated in terms of service conditions. The junior management assistants entered into service contracts individually with the management at or after the time of creation of the cadre of junior management assistants in 1973. Under the service contracts, the junior management assistants are to get only consolidated monthly salary with increments but without dearness allowance and other benefits which are given to non-junior management assistants and other workmen of lower categories under the management. The Junior Management Assistants' Association placed a charter of demands, dated 14 November 1983, before the management. They have demanded in the charter, regular scales of pay for the junior management assistants and the implementation of such scales along with payment of proper dearness allowance from 1 January 1982 onwards. Keeping the junior management assistants under the system of consolidated pay without dearness allowance is discriminatory, in that skilled, unskilled and other categories of workmen and non-junior management assistants under the same management are being paid wages according to pay-scales in addition to dearness allowance which forms a significant part of the wages, escalating from time to time depending upon the cost of living index. The Junior Management Assistants' Association claimed payment of dearness allowance fixation of suitable wage scale with provision for annual increments in the place of consolidated monthly salary and payment of house rent allowance and other benefits by invoking the same principles as applicable to other non-junior management assistants with the management are unjust, unfair and unacceptable. Even an unskilled workman was getting Rs. 857 as dearness allowances in 1984, which was increased to Rs. 2008 in 1992. On the other hand, they monthly total wage earned by a junior management assistants inclusive of ad hoc increase of Rs. 125 is less than half of the wage of an unskilled workmen like sweeper. The settlement reached under the Industrial Disputes Act effective from 1 December 1984, which covers non-junior management assistants getting pay-scales and dearness allowances should be made applicable to the junior management assistants on the principle of equality and parity of reasoning. The demands of the junior management assistants have to be accepted with effect from 1984.

5. In the courter statement filed in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84, the management averred as follows: Junior Management Assistants' Association representing the junior management assistants was formed in the year 1983. The junior management assistants were formerly members of other two general unions, namely, workers union and staff union representing all the workman belonging to Simpson Group Companies. The junior management assistants were discriminated and given higher status of non-workmen from 1973. The conversion or change of the category of ordinary workmen into the category of junior management assistants was effected after mutual discussion. 195 workmen were designated as junior management assistants category of officers in 1973 by entering into individual service contracts giving them various benefits. Consolidated salary without dearness allowance but with increment is an important condition of service of junior management assistants. The higher benefits available to the category of junior management assistants have been enjoyed by the junior management assistants from 1973 onwards and the scheme of promotion constitutes one of the benefits. Having accepted the service contract with all the advantages for nearly 12 years, the junior management assistants cannot be heard to say that they are entitled to a new wage structure in the form of pay-scales dearness allowance house rent allowance among other things.

6. By the award, dated 29 December 1986, in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84, the Industrial Tribunal on issue (1) relating to the question of lockout held as follows:

“The action of the management was perfectly valid and justified and not resorted to by way of victimization or unfair labour practice. The workmen had subsequent to the reference given the undertaking as required and resumed duty on 8 November 1984. It is unfortunate that they were ill-advised to abstain from duty for the period in question, which cannot be treated as one duty to enable them to secure wages for the period or to claim other attendant benefits like bonus or leave. However, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of industrial harmony the management is directed to pay the concerned workmen one month's wages as ad hoc payment for the period when they were on strike which shall be treated as absence from duty amounting to break in service. The workmen are not entitled to any other relief. The issue is answered accordingly.”

By the said award, on issues 2 to 22, the Industrial Tribunal held as follows:

“Re: Issues 2, 3, and 6: The workmen who raised the dispute be paid an additional sum of Rs. 125 per month from 1 April 1986, if not received earlier;

Issue No. 4: It would be open to the management to extend the benefit of the incentive payment under incentive scheme as per Exhibit M. 55 to all Assistants whether they are members of the petitioner-union or not;

Issue No. 5: The mess facility could be extended in lieu of lunch allowance of Rs. 25 from 1 April 1987, to all management Assistants;

Issues Nos. 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 to 21: No tangible evidence produced to justify the demands and none of the other workmen is also securing such benefits and, therefore, shall stand rejected as untenable and unjustified;

Issue No. 8: Conveyance allowance payable to those working in computer centre having outdoor work only and not justified and negatived;

Issue No. 10: Two sets of terrycotton uniforms every year should be made available from 1 January 1987, to all management assistants whether belonging to petitioner union or not;

Issue No. 13: Festival advance as in the case of other workmen should be extended from 1 January 1987, to all management assistants irrespective of the fact whether they are members of petitioner-union or not;

Issue No. 22: The existing practice of payment of reserve holidays to the management assistants as given to other workmen shall be continued.”

So far as the case of the sales representatives, who also raised the disputes in question along with the junior management assistants are concerned, the Tribunal held that the salesmen employed in paint manufacturing industries, as in this case are not workmen but however, even if they are not workmen the dispute in respect of the matter affecting their employment and conditions of service shall be adjudicated upon, if they have any community of interest with other workmen involved in the dispute and such community of interest is direct and not remote and overruled the objection of the management in this regard. The said award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 29 December 1984, was challenged by the Junior Management Assistants' Association in Writ Petition No. 3419 of 1987. The services of one E.D Arumugam, a sales representative, the appellant in Writ Appeal 788 of 1992 was terminated by the management by order, dated 2 June 1988, and the dispute in this regard came to be referred to the Labour Court in G.O.Ms No. 128, Labour and Employment, dated 13 January 1989. The said order is G.O.Ms No. 128 was challenged by the management in Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1989. The management earlier filed another writ petition Writ Petition No. 12729 of 1984 challenging the very order of reference made in G.O.Ms 2313, dated 1 January 1984, referring to the Industrial Tribunal, the 22 issues referred above for adjudication in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84.

7. In Writ Petition No. 3419 of 1987, S. Ramalingam, J., by order, dated 29 September 1991, modified the order sof Tribunal, dated 29 December 1986, on issue (1) in the following terms:

“17. After negotiations in this regard and after hearing both sides, this Court orders that the management would pay in addition to the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing payment of one month's wages, payment by the management of wages for a further period of fifty (50) days. There would not be any break in service. The strike is declared as not illegal. Time for payment four weeks.”

Raju, J., who finally heard the Writ Petition 3419 of 1987 along with Writ Petition 12729 of 1984 and Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1989 by the order, dated 8 April 1992 held that the order of S. Ramalingam, J. Dated 20 September 1991, is final so far as issue (1) relating to lockout is concerned and does not allow of any further hearing or a fresh determination once over again. The learned Single Judge by the said order further set aside the findings of the Tribunal on issues (2), (3) and (6) relating to demand for dearness allowance, demand for fixation of scale of pay for various categories of junior management assistants and demand for house rent allowance respectively and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. However, the learned Single Judge confirmed the findings of the Tribunal on all other issues and dismissed the Writ Petition No. 3419 of 1987 so far as the other issues are concerned. The management aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the findings of the Tribunal on issues (2), (3) and (6) and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on those three issues, has filed Writ Appeal No. 802 of 1992. The Junior Management Assistants' Association, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 3419 of 1987 in so far as it relates to issues other than issues (2), (3) and (6), filed Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992. On the question, whether the sales representatives are workmen within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which is the subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1989, the learned Single Judge held that the sales representative are not workmen and consequently allowed the said writ petition. As against the said order in Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1989 the employee, viz. The respondent therein has filed the Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992. The learned Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition No. 12729 of 1984 on the ground that it had been rendered infructuous and the management has not filed any appeal against the order dismissing Writ Petition No. 12729 of 1984.

8. Pursuant to the order of remand made in Writ Petition No. 3419 of 1987, on issues (2), (3), and (6), the Tribunal took up the matter for fresh disposal, examined certain witnesses and passed a fresh award in respect of issues (2), (3) and (6) on 31 December 1992, in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84. By the said award, dated 31 December 1992, the Tribunal on issue (2) relating to the demand for dearness allowance and on issue relating to demand for fixation of scale of pay for various categories of junior management assistants held as follows:

“34. I, therefore, hold on issue (2) that the junior management assistant service contracts under which workmen already employed by the respondent have been promoted to the junior management assistants cadre and other workmen have been directly taken in as junior management assistants are unjust, illegal and unenforceable with effect from 1 November 1984, and that payment of dearness allowance to all the concerned workmen who are now freed from the junior management assistants system shall be made at the usual rate and formula applicable to Madras city with effect from 1 November 1984. In respect of issue (3), I hold that in the place of the consolidated wages the workmen having the following designations shall have the wage scales with increments shown against each designation with effect from 1 November 1984.

1. Chemist : Rs. 210 - 25/5 -335 -40/8 -655 2. Office Assistant : Rs. 210 - 25/5 -335-40/5-535 3. Salesman : Rs. 210 - 25/5-335-40/7-615 4. Special Grade Clerk : Rs. 150 - 15/4-210-25/6-360 5. Senior Clerk and Telephone Operator : Rs. 150 - 15/4 -210-20/5-310 6. Junior Clerk, Typist and Sergeant. : Rs. 100 -5/2-110-7.50/8-170-10/5-220 7. Stenographer : Rs. 130-15/6-220-20/6-340 8. Comptist : Rs. 130 -15/11 -295

35. I have fixed a wage-scale for salesman, treating them as a specific category of workmen because they can be differentiated from sales representative (sales promotion employees) who are not workmen as defined in S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. I have not fixed any wage scale for research and development assistants as there are only two such posts, one held by WW 5 Sri Ramani who has since resigned his job and the other held by Sri K.V Abraham who is not concerned in this dispute. The terms regardmg fitment and weightage shall be as follows:

Fitment formula: By avoiding a cumbersome fitment formal, I decide that employees having completed 10 years of service as on 1 November 1984, shall be paid one special increment and those completing more than 10 years as on 1 November 1984, two special increments at the rates applicable to the relevant pay-scale of the employees without in any way affecting the service weightage or further increments falling due from 15 November 1985, onwards. In any case, the total emoluments of a workman in accordance with the pay-scale now prescribed plus dearness allowance shall not become lesser than the total emoluments drawn by the workmen as on 1 November 1984, under the junior management assistant contract system.

Service weightage: The workmen of the above designations, shall be paid weightage by the respondent, in the manner provided in Exhibit W. 89 settlement, viz., those having put in 10 years of service as on 1 November 1984, shall be given Rs. 10 each and all those with longer service as on that date shall be paid Rs. 20 each as weightage without prejudice to the normal increments falling due from i November 1985. Issue (4) is answered accordingly. For calculation of dearness allowance, paise rate per point over and above 100 points (base) of cost of living index in respect of these employees shall be the same amount of paise fixed under Exhibit W. 81 settlement, Exhibit W. 89 settlement and also very subsequent settlement coming into existence in respect of other employees who are not directly concerned in this industrial dispute, Madras cost of living index figures published from time to time shall be used for deciding the points.”

On issue (6) relating to the payment for house rent allowance the Tribunal held that the workman represented by the Junior Management Assistants' Association as on the date of reference shall be given house rent allowance with effect from 1 November 1984, and the rate of house rent allowance payable shall be the same rates applicable to the workmen covered by Exhibit W. 89 settlement and its preceding settlement, provided that they shall not be eligible to claim house rent allowance prior to 1 November 1984. Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, on remand, relating to issues (2), (3) and (6), the management has filed Writ Petition No. 12476 of 1993. The Junior Management Assistants' Association in is turn filed Writ Petition No. 13814 of 1993 challenging the said award, dated 31 December 1992, regarding the grant of dearness allowance and house rent allowance only from 1 November 1984, and the mode of fixation of scale of pay under issue (3) in respect of the various categories of junior management assistants.

9. Writ Appeal No. 802 of 1992, Writ Petition No. 12476 of 1993 and Writ Petition No. 13814 of 1993: The subject-matter of Writ Appeals No. 802/922 and Writ Petitions Nos. 12476 and 13814 of 1993 is the issues relating to the junior management assistants demands for payment of dearness allowance, fixation of pay-scale and house rent allowance being issues (2), (3) and (6) under the reference in G.O.Ms 2313, dated 2 November 1984, made to the Tribunal for adjudication. Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 802 of 1992 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12476 of 1993, submitted in the first place that originally there was only one union known as Simpson Group Companies Workers and Staff Union, that only in 1983 the Junior Management Assistants' Association was formed and prior to that even in 1973 the junior management assistants severed their connection with the original union and entered into separate service contracts with the management resulting in, they being treated as junior management assistants and part of management with entitlement for an increment of Rs. 25 per year apart from the consolidated salary fixed and it was agreed even then that these category of junior management assistants would not be entitled to any incentive or any other allowances. There was provision for payment of lunch allowances of Rs. 25 per month. The learned counsel for the management also contended that the management brought into existence the said special category of management assistants with scope for further promotion and that not only such service contracts were entered into voluntarily but also all along they enjoyed the benefit of annual increment ranging from Rs. 25 to Rs. 50 per year and promotional opportunities and periodical ad hoc increase, to offset the rise in the cost of living index whatever may be the reason for such persons to seek for increase in terms of payment received by them and to get increase in the consolidated pay, there is absolutely no ground for altering the contract system in vogue all these years, under which the junior management assistants enjoyed certain benefits. The further contention of the learned counsel for the management is that the grievance of the junior management assistants came to light only in 1984, that as on date only 30 persons are insisting upon the same and that in any event the award of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, will not apply to junior management assistants who have voluntarily resigned from the Junior Management Assistants' Association and filed affidavit to the effect that they are not interested in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84. It is also contended on behalf of the management that the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association who voluntarily exercised their option and entered into the said service contract with the management are estopped from going behind the same having all along enjoyed the benefits of the said contract, merely because it is advantageous for them to claim revised scales of pay, dearness allowance and house rent allowance in view of rise in the cost of living index. It is again contended tat the settlement entered into with other workmen under Exhibit W. 81 under S. 12(3) of the Act has no application to the junior management assistants as they are not parties to the said settlement. Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management further submitted that there is no doubt a short fall of wages received by the junior management assistants and in such a case the Tribunal can award only enhanced consolidated pay and it cannot upset the entire service contract system. According to the learned counsel for the management, the learned Single Judge is not at all justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal, dated 29 December 1986 on issues (2), (3) and (6), and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal holing that the service contracts entered by the junior management assistants with the management are unfair and unjust. Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, challenged the award of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, which is the subject-matter of Writ Petitions Nos. 12476 and 13814 of 1993 on the ground that there is absolutely no justification for the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the service contracts entered into by the junior management assistants with the management are unjust, unfair and illegal with effect from 1 November 1984, that payment of dearness allowance to all the concerned workmen who are freed from junior management assistant system shall be made at the usual rates and formula applicable to Madras City with effect from 1 November 1984, that in the place of consolidated wages, the junior management assistants shall have wage scales with increments with effect from 1 November 1984 and that the workmen shall be given house rent allowance with effect from 1 November 1984.

10. On the contrary, Sri N.G.R Prasad, learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association, contended that the Industrial Tribunal by its original order, dated 29 December 1986, held that the junior management assistants are workmen that the said finding of the Tribunal has never been challenged by the management. Once when the junior management assistants are treated as workmen, they should be treated on par with other workers in the unionised category both in the matter of scales of pay, dearness allowance and house rent allowance, that a flat rate of increment periodically given under the contract system is not just, reasonable or effective substitute for the claims made before the Tribunal, that the flat rate of increase is or answer to the grant of revised scales of pay, dearness allowance in accordance with the price index in force from time to time, that the management cannot pin down the junior management assistants to the service contracts executed by them and if the junior management assistants are continued under the service contract the disparity in the wages drawn by the junior management assistants and the non-junior management assistant workmen doing the same work will be vast and substantial resulting in serious prejudice and that here is every justification to reverse the contract system. According to Sri N.G.R Prasad, the grievance of the Junior Management Assistants' Association against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, is that the Tribunal ought to have given the relief to the junior management assistants from 1973 itself when they entered into the independent service contract with the management. Sri N.G.R Prasad, further contended that the wage-scales as fixed by the Tribunal by the award, dated 31 December 1992, after the remand for the various categories of junior management assistants in Paras. 34 and 36 of the award is not correct and the Tribunal has not disclosed the basis for fixing such wage-scales for the various categories of workmen.

11. In the light of the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration in these writ appeals and writ petitions:

(i) Whether the service contracts entered into by the Members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association with the management in 1973 are unjust, illegal and unenforceable and whether the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association are bound by the service contracts?

(ii) Can the junior management assistants having all along enjoyed the benefits, under the service contracts be allowed to break the service contracts and claim pay-scales, dearness allowance and house rent allowance to which the non-junior management assistants workmen are entitled to?

(iii) Whether the order of the learned Single Judge, dted 8 April 1992, in Writ Petition No. 3419 of 1987 setting aside the findings of the Tribunal, dated 29 December 1986, in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 on issues (2),(3) and (6) and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on the said three issues is correct?

(iv) Whether the award of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, holding that the junior management assistants are entitled to:

(a) payment of dearness allowance at the usual rate and formula applicable to Madras City with effect from 1 November 1984?

(b) that in the place of consolidated wages, junior management assistants shall have regular scales of pay with increment with effect from 1 November 1984; and

(c) that the house rent allowance payable to the junior management assistants shall be at the same rates applicable to workmen covered by Exhibit W. 89 settlement with effect from 1 November 1984, is correct?

(v) Whether the wage scale fixed in the award of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, for various categories of junior management assistants in Paras. 34 and 36 of the award of the Tribunal is correct?

(vi) Whether the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association are entitled to the benefit of the settlement under Exhibit W. 81 and Exhibit W. 89?

(vii) Whether the award of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 will apply to the junior management assistants who have subsequently resigned from the Junior Management Assistants' Association?

12. Point No.(i). It is the common case of the parties that the category of junior management assistants clasified as a part of the management staff was created from 1 January 1973. The workmen already employed by the management in the post of clerks, assistants, stenographers, chemists and salesmen with fixed pay-scales plus dearness allowance have opted to become junior management assistants by accepting individual service contracts under the junior management assistants scheme introduced in 1973. The non-junior management assistant wormen designated as assistants doing clerical and other jobs continued to work with the status of workmen under the management. Admittedly such non-junior management assistants workmen received regular pay-scales plus dearness allowance house rent allowance and other benefits. An examination and comparison of the wage scales, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, and other benefits drawn by the non-junior management assistant workmen who are doing the very same work as the junior management assistants and the consolidated pay and increment received by the junior management assistants under the contract system will show whether the service contracts entered into by the junior management assistants with the management are unfair, unjust and inequitable. In the original enquiry in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 on behalf of the Junior Management Assistants' Association, one S. Krishnamachari was examined as W.W 1. According to the evidence of W.W 1, his job is clerical in nature and he became a junior management assistant from the year 1976 under the service contract system and his consolidated monthly salary is Rs. 1,052 plus Rs. 25 as lunch allowance. W.W 1 further stated in his evidence that one Ganapathy and Santhanam who are not members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association like other workers get dearness allowance and house rent allowance under the settlements, that the management's incentive (Rs. 125 as incentive from 15 May 1984) has been rejected by 100 junior management assistants, that Narasimhan typist, a non-junior management assistant workman who has put in 25 years of service with the pay has rejected promotion to the junior management assistants category as the junior management assistants salary is less, that the two settlements Exhibits W. 81 and W. 89 under S. 12(3) of the Act have come into existence in respect or other unions of non-junior management assistant workmen, that the service contracts signed by several junior management assistants have expired due to efflux of time the salary of a junior management assistant is far less than that of a sweeper drawing pay according to pay-scale. The evidence of W.W 2 shows that W.W 2 who is the President of the Junior Management Assistants' Association is working as Chemist belonging to the junior management assistant category drawing a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 1,730 plus Rs. 25 lunch allowance. The evidence of W.W 5 shows that he is a highly qualified among the junior management assistants having M.Sc, Ph.D degree working with the designation of Research Chemist and getting Rs. 1,750 plus Rs. 25 allowance in all in terms of individual service contracts governing the junior management assistant category. The evidence record further discloses that many of these junior management assistants were originally working under the management as ordinary workmen, namely clerks/assistants/stenographers, etc., and drawing regular pay-scale along with dearness allowance and house rent allowance. The non-junior management assistant workmen having the status of workmen under the Act are admittedly receiving certain benefits which are not available to the junior management assistants covered by the service contracts. These benefits include fixed house rent allowance of Rs. 75 per mensem, monthly education allowance of Rs. 75 fixed travelling allowance of Rs. 35 per month, medical reimbursement allowance of Rs. 40 per month to those not covered by Employees' State Insurance and canteen facilities at subsidised rates. It is also seen from the evidence that besides these benefits, the workmen of non-junior management assistant category are also having small avenue of promotion. Exhibit W. 91 is the list of pay-scales of various categories of non-junior management assistants workmen, namely, junior clerk, typist, sergeants forming one category and pay-scale of senior clerk, telephone operator, office assistant, stenographer and chemist. Apart from the regular pay-scale, the non-junior management assistant workmen are entitled to dearness allowance. Further the allegations of the Junior Management Assistants' Association-claimants in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 in the supplemental claim statement filed on 20 May 1992, regarding the quantum of dearness allowance have not been denied by the management either in pleading or by M.W 1 in his evidence. The said supplemental claim statement shows that the cost of living index in January 1992, is 5384 which is 2604 over and above 2780 in November 1984. It is also seen from the evidence that the non-junior management assistant workmen belonging to the unskilled category were receiving dearness allowance of Rs. 857.60 in November 1984 while the same has gone up to Rs. 1928.66 in January 1992, which goes to show the significant and considerable dearness allowance component which goes into the total monthly wages of non-junior management assistant workmen In contrast, the junior management assistants have been given an ad hoc increase of Rs. 125 besides annual increments to the consolidated wage fixed under the service contracts. Exhibit P.W 96 is the chart giving the dearness allowance amounts drawn by the concerned workmen before becoming junior management assistants, the difference in dearness allowance as in July 1992, which they would have drawn as junior management assistants assuming such dearness allowance is given, the ad hoc increment given to the junior management assistants in the absence of dearness allowance and the total amount of money which has not been paid to each junior management assistant as result of denial of dearness allowance. The junior management assistants have also produced Exhibt W. 98 to show the poor emoluments drawn by the junior management assistants as a result of deprivation of dearness allowance. As against the emoluments of junior management assistants total wages including dearness allowance drawn by the non-junior management assistants workmen as in 1992 are given in the list Exhibit W. 99 in respect of 14 workers. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal from the particulars available in Exhibit W. 99 it is seen that the average emoluments of non-junior management assistant workmen holding the post of clerk, typist, office assistant, stenographer, etc., is more than Rs. 2,500 per mensem. The last three workmen shown in Exhibit W. 99 who are unskilled workmen, namely, gardner, sweeper and skilled sweeper with service of two years, 14 years and 2 years and 22 years respectively are drawing Rs. 2,485, Rs. 2,491, Rs. 2.480 and Rs. 2,502 respectively. M.W 1 admitted in his cross-examination that workers in the sweeper category were paid in August 1992 in all Rs. 2.200 (approximately) and that in June 1992 a sweeper with two years of service get Rs. 2,400 inclusive of clearness allowance. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that for the post of a chemist, B.Sc Chemistry is essential and that the consolidated wage received by a chemist in June 1992, was Rs. 975 plus lunch allowance Rs. 25. Further W.W 1 has admitted in his cross-examination as follows:

“22. serial No. 3 Abraham, serial No. 7 Narayanan, serial No. 22 Nandakumar, serial No. 14 Harinathan, serial No. 8 Nageswaran, serial No. 25 Ramasamy, serial No. 2 Nandagopal, serial No. 21 Vijayakumar, serial No. 4 Ramamurty, serial No. 10 Venkatesan, serial No. 12 Viswanathan, serial No. 11 Balakrishnan, serial No. 15 Koil Pillai, in Exhibit M. 79 get on and after promotion, (consolidated) salary which is less than the sweeper's pay-scales.”

His further admission in cross-examination is that the promoted junior management assistants in Exhibit M. 75 get a consolidated wage which is less than the sweepers' salary. In this context, it is worthwhile to reproduce the discussion of the Tribunal in Para. 19 of the award which reads thus:

“Taking Exhibit W. 96 Exhibit W. 101 together the consolidated wages of 121 junior management assistant workers as on 2 November 1984, the date of reference range roughly between Rs. 900 per month and Rs. 1,400 per month and in a very few cases monthly wage goes up to Rs. 1,550 or Rs. 1,660 or Rs. 1,750. The approximate emoluments which a junior management assistant was having just before becoming junior management assistants in 1973 or thereafter below Rs. 1,000 per month inclusive of dearness allowance. All these facts as to the consolidated wages paid to these special category management staff, sweetly christened as junior management assistants clearly prove that due to the lack of dearness allowance, junior management assistants are getting monthly wages which compare very unfavourably with the non-junior management assistant workmen of even the lowest rungs such as unskilled workmen, gardener and sweeper. The meagre annual increments in addition to the ad hoc increase of Rs. 125 given to the junior management assistants have not appreciably increased their monthly emoluments to anywhere near the monthly wages of workmen drawing basic pay plus dearness allowance. To show the glaring difference between the emoluments of junior management assistants and non-junior management assistant workmen, both doing the same duties, Exhibit W. 97 has been filed.”

13. No doubt, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, attempted to show that the junior management assistants with service conditions fixed under the service contracts do have more attractive remunerative and rewarding benefits, pay, etc., in the long run, because, they are given timely promotions. The learned counsel relied on the evidence of M.W 1 and Exhibit M. 78 which is a chart showing how similarly placed junior management assistants have been benefited by promotions which are not available to non-junior management assistant workmen enjoying dearness allowance and regular pay-scales. A perusal of Exhibit M. 78 shows that out of 91 junior management assistants only serial Nos. 1 to 17 have entered the service under the management prior to the reference date, namely, 2 November 1984. Exhibit M. 78 further shows that serial No. 1 Sri T.K.S Mani joined as Senior Chemist on 2 February 1948 has gone up the ladder to become Deputy General Manager in 1968, Executive Director in 1982 and Vice President of the company in 1990. Serial No. 2 Sri K.S Ramachandran, joined as Junior Chemist in 1957 has become Chief Chemist drawing Rs. 3,350 besides perquisites. It is seen from Exhibit M. 78 that even among these 17 junior management assistants serial No. 7, serial No. 9 and serial No. 10 are drawing only Rs. 1,275 and Rs. 1,125 respectively. All the other junior management assistants commencing from serial No. 18 and ending with serial No. 91 in Exhibit M. 78 have become employed under the management only after the order of reference, dated 2 November 1984, and their monthly consolidated emoluments are Rs. 1,050 Rs. 1,200 Rs. 1,250 and Rs. 2,100 etc., serial Nos. 60 to 91 have been appointed in 1990–1992 and their consolidated emoluments do not exceed Rs. 2,000 on an average. The evidence in this case disclosed that apart from promotion the other benefits received by the junior management assistants as seen from Exhibit M. 80 are medical reimbursement facility, lunch allowance of Rs. 25 per mensem, interest free loan to the employees of the sales section for purchasing own conveyance, monthly conveyance allowance, group insurance scheme and lump sum increase in the consolidated wage. On the other hand, the main benefits available to the non-junior management assistants workmen include a fixed pay-scale coupled with dearness allowance, a fixed house rent allowance, annual increment transport allowance, Employees' State Insurance coverage or fixed medical allowance and incentive money to the workmen producing more than the prescribed output. The evidence referred above clearly go to show the vast difference between the wage-structure and the cost of living and the actual wages received by the non-junior management assistants workmen and the junior management assistants. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal by its award, dated 31 December 1992, and by the learned Single Judge, the flat rate method of increase agreed to under the junior management assistants service contract system is no effective answer to the periodical and automatic increase in the dearness allowance of the non-junior management assistant workmen commensurate with the cost of living index prevailing from time to time. On a comparison of the pay-scales, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and other benefits available to non-junior management assistant workmen with the consolidated monthly salary with the other benefits available to the junior management assistants, who are doing the same work we are of the view that the individual service contracts entered into by the junior management assistants with the management are not fair, just and equitable. On the basis of the materials referred above, the Tribunal by its order, dated 31 December 1992, rightly found that the junior management assistants service contract system is unfair and it cannot be sustained as a lawful contract. We are in entire agreement with the said conclusion of the Tribunal as it is based on acceptable evidence. Accordingly on point No. (1) we find that the service contract entered into by the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association with the management are unjust, illegal and unenforceable and the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association are not bound by the said junior management assistants service contracts.

14. Point No.(ii) The contention of Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, is that the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association who voluntarily exercised their option and entered into special service contracts with the management are estopped from going behind the same 10 years after entering into the service contracts having all along enjoyed the benefits of the said contracts, merely because, it is now advantageous for them to claim revised scales of pay dearness allowance and house rent allowance in view of the rise in the cost of living index. We are unable to accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the management. No doubt, the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association entered into service contract in the year 1973 under the junior management assistants scheme. However, the status of junior management assistants as workmen has been declared by the original order of the Tribunal, dated 29 December 1986, which has not been challenged by the management. It is settled position of law that even in respect of a service contracts entered into between the workmen and the management, Courts and Tribunals constituted under the Act can go into the question whether such service contracts are unfair,/unreasonable and inequitable and whether such service contracts will bind the parties and if the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of a particular case comes to the conclusion that a particular service contract is not fair and just, it can always declare that such a service contract will not bind the parties to the contract.

15. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation, Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [1986 - II L.L.N 382], the Supreme Court observes thus in Paras. 106 and 107, at page 430:

“106 It was, however, submitted on behalf of the appellants that this was a contract entered into by the Corporation like any other contract entered into by it in the course of its trading activities and the Court, therefore, ought not to interfere with it. It is not possible for us to equate employees with goods which can be bought and sold. It is equally not possible for us to equate a contract of employment with a mercantile transaction between two businessmen and much less to do so when the contract of employment is between a powerful employer and a weak employee.

107. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that rule 9(i) was supported by mutuality inasmuch as it coffered an equal right upon both the parties, for under it just as the employer could terminate the employee's service by giving him three months' notice or by paying him three months' basic pay and dearness allowance in lieu thereof, the employee could have the service by giving three months' notice and when he failed to give such notice, the corporation could deduct an equivalent amount from whatever may be payable to him. It is true that there is mutuality in Cl. 9(i) the sure mutuality as in a contract between the lion and the lamb that both will be free to roam about in the jungle and each will be at liberty to devour the other. When one considers the unequal position of the corporation and its employees, the argument of mutuality becomes laughable.”

16. In Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company (Private), Ltd. v. Bharat Barrel Employees Union [1987 - II L.L.N 1], the Apex Court has held as follows in Para. 12, at page 6:

“We would hasten to add that the above observations do not mean that a question which is once decided can never be re-agitated. There are certain classes of cases like disputes regarding wage-structure, service conditions, etc., which arise as circumstances change and new situations arise which may not be barred by the rule of res judicata. The disputes which arose for consideration in Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Company v. Balmer Lawrie and Company [1964 - I L.L.J 380], and in Associated Cement Staff Union v. Associated Cement Company [1964 — I L.L.J 12], belong to this category of cases.”

On an examination of the evidence available on records in the present case, we have confirmed in Para. 13 supra the finding rendered by the Tribunal in the award, dated 31 December 1992, and that the individual service contracts entered into by the junior management assistants with the management are not fair and equitable and that the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association are not bound by such service contracts. In view of the legal and factual position, we are of the view that the junior management assistants are not estopped from going behind the service contracts and claiming the pay-scales, dearness allowance and house rent allowance paid to the non-junior management assistant workmen ignoring their individual service contracts entered into with the management. Point NO.(ii) is answered accordingly.

17. Point No.(iii). The Tribunal by its original order, dated 29 December 1986, dealing with the issues relating to the demand for dearness allowance, fixation of scales of pay and house rent allowance, subject matters of issues (2), (3), and (6) in the order of reference made by the Government held that the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association having agreed to receive consolidated pay under the individual service contracts, cannot be allowed the reliefs claimed under issues (2), (3) and (6), particularly when the paying capacity of the management does not warrant the grant of such reliefs. The Single Judge, on a consideration of the fact and circumstances of the case, found that the Tribunal while rejecting the demands raised by the junior management assistants under issues (2), (3) and (6) overplayed the paying capacity criteria of the management and that the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the junior management assistants have entered into their individual service contracts, they can be granted only an additional sum of Rs. 125 per month cannot be sustained in law and consequently set aside the findings of the Tribunal on issues (2), (3) and (6) and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The infirmity in the award of the Tribunal, dated 29 December 1986, is that the Tribunal while rejecting the demands made by the junior management assistants under issues (2), (3) and (6) failed to examine the question whether the individual service contracts entered into by the junior management assistants with the management are fair just and reasonable. On point No.(i) we have found earlier that the service contracts entered into by the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association with the management are unfair, unjust, illegal and unenforceable, and that the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association are not bound by such service contracts. Similarly on point NO.(ii) we have found that the junior management assistants can be allowed to break the service contracts and claim the pay-scales, dearness allowance and house rent allowance paid to the non-junior management assistant workmen. In view of our findings on point Nos.(i) and (ii) it has to be held that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 8 April 1992, in Writ Petition No. 3419 of 1987 setting aside the findings of the Tribunal in the award, dated 29 December 1986, on issues (2), (3) and (6) and remanding the matter in respect of those issues to the Tribunal for fresh disposal is quite correct and not liable to be interfered with in Writ Appeal No. 802 of 1992 Point No.(iii) is answered accordingly.

18. Point No.(iv): It is the admitted case of both parties that the cadre of junior management assistants classified as part of the management staff was created from 1 January 1973. The posts Of junior management assistants are created by the management comprising of three groups, namely administrative assistants, technical assistants, research and development assistants. It is also the admitted case by both the parties that similar post of assistants continued to exist as a distinct cadre of non-junior management assistants who are differently treated in terms of service conditions. Such non-junior management assistant administrative assistants, technical assistants, research and development assistants, are entitled to fixed pay-scales dearness allowance and house rent allowance and they are actually enjoying the above benefits. We have found earlier on points Nos.(i) and (ii) that the individual service contracts entered into by the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association with the management are unfair unjust and unreasonable, that they are not bound by such service contracts and that they are not estopped from going behind their service contracts and claiming pay-scales, dearness allowance and house rent allowance paid to the non-junior management assistant workmen. Once when we come to the conclusion that the service contracts entered into by the junior management assistants are not fair and binding on them, there is no difficulty in holding that the junior management assistants who are doing the same work as non-junior management assistant workmen are entitled to the dearness allowance fixed pay-scales and house rent allowance which are paid to the non-junior management assistant workmen by the management. Again, as already pointed out the Tribunal by its original award, dated 29 December 1986, held that the junior management assistants are workmen and the said finding of the Tribunal has have been challenged by the management once when the junior management assistants are held to be workmen and that the junior management assistants contract system is not fair and binding on the junior management assistants, we are of the view that they are entitled to be treated on par with non-junior management assistant workmen in the matter of scales of pay, dearness allowance and house rent allowance.

19. Sri N.G.R Prasad, learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association, would submit that the junior management assistants, contract system came into force in 1973 and as the said junior management assistants service contracts are held to be non-binding on the junior management assistants, they are entitled to the reliefs claimed under issues (2), (3) and (6) from the year 1973 and the Tribunal is not justified in restricting the reliefs from 2 November 1984. There is no merit in the above contention of the leaned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association. It must be remembered that the charter of demands itself was submitted bv the Junior Management Assistants' Association to the management in the year 1983 and ultimately the Government on 2 November 1984, by G.O.Ms No. 2313, dated 2 November 1984, referred the above mentioned three issues relating to dearness allowance, fixation of pay-scales and house rent allowance along with other issues to the Tribunal for adjudication. Again, in the supplemental claim statement filed by the junior management assistants in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 on 20 May 1992, their specific case is that their demands have to be accepted with effect from 1984. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in granting reliefs claiming under issues (2), (3) and (6) with effect from 2 November 1984. In the above circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the award of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, in respect of issues (2), (3) and (6) that the junior management assistants are entitled to payment of dearness allowance at the usual rate and formula with effect from 1 November 1984, is correct and legal and not liable to be quashed, that in the place of consolidated wages the junior management assistants shall have regular scales of pay with increment with effect from 1 November 1984, and that the house rent allowance payable to the junior management assistants shall be the same rates applicable to the workmen covered by Exhibit W. 89 settlement with effect from 1 November 1984. Point NO.(iv) is answered accordingly.

20. Point Nos.(v) and (vi):. The contention of Sri Prasad with regard to the fixation of scales of pay, the subject matter of the issue (3) is that the wage scale as fixed' by the Tribunal in Para. 34 of the award is erroneous inasmuch as the award of the Tribunal fixing the pay-scale does not disclose the basis on which the Tribunal fixed the for the various categories of junior management assistants. Further the grievance of the junior management assistants with regard to the fixation of scales of pay by the Tribunal as in Para. 34 of the award is voiced in Para. 9 of the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No. 13814 of 1993 as follows:

“9. The second respondent should have fixed the wage scale in such a way that the basic salary of the junior management assistants will not be less than what they were getting in 1973 or at the time just before becoming junior management assistants with periodical increments. The Industrial Tribunal should have devised the basic salary for these categories in such a way that they were fitted into a step which was not less than the basic they were drawing before becoming the junior management assistants in 1973. The Industrial Tribunal should have given increments on point to point basis. The Industrial Tribunal should have devised the basic salary in such a way that after adding the dearness allowance as per the cost of living index and house rent allowance the junior management assistants would have drawn wages on par with their counterparts. The present basis salary fixed under the award has put them in a worse position than their counterparts. It treats senior employees with over 25 years of service on par with far juniors in the matter of basic wage. It takes away the benefits of increments earned while working as a non-junior management assistants under a scale of pay applicable to him then. The Industrial Tribunal failed to see that the basic salary fixed in Para. 34 though may be advantageous for new entrants, would be to the detriment of those who have put in longer years of service.”

There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association. The Tribunal itself in Para. 30 of the award has stated as follows:

“… a fully acceptable and sound wage-structure to the satisfaction of workers cannot be devised in this award, but we have to be content with fixing wage scales for these junior management assistant, leaving the fixation of still better wage scales to be made either in another industrial dispute or through conciliation.”

In our view, the Tribunal has not adopted the proper procedure in fixing the pay-scales of the junior management assistants in question. The Tribunal ought to have taken into account the basic pay fixed for each of the junior management assistants when they entered the service of the management as non-junior management assistant workmen and then should have fixed the basis pay as on 2 November 1984, taking into consideration the increments to which he would be entitled to and the benefits of the settlement under Exhibit W. 89 treating him as a non-junior management assistants workman and as if the concerned workman never entered into the junior management assistants service contract with the management. As the Tribunal has not followed the said procedure in fixing the pay-scales for the workmen in question, the award of the Tribunal in Paras. 34 and 36 with regard to the fixation of pay-scales is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. We ourselves are not in a position to do that exercise of fixing the correct wage scales for the junior management assistants in question because, there is no consensus between the parties as what is the basic pay drawn by the junior management assistants in question and when they entered into the service of the management as a non-junior management assistant workman. In fact, the chart submitted by the counsel for the management showing the basic pay of the junior management assistants in question, during the course of hearing all these matters by us was not accepted by the counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association. In these circumstances, we are constrained to remit the matter to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of fixing the wage scales for the workmen in question as on 2 November 1984, on the basic of the basic pay of the various categories of non-junior management assistant workmen on the date of entering into. Accordingly, the question of fixation of the scales of pay to the workmen in question alone is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. In fixing the wage-scales, the Tribunal is also directed to proceed on the basis that the workmen in question are entitled to the benefits of the settlement under Exhibits W. 81 and W. 89 as junior management assistants have been declared to be workmen, by the award of the Tribunal, dated 29 December 1986, which has not been challenged by the management. In respect of junior management assistants, who entered into the service as junior management assistants after 1973, the basic pay of a similar non-junior management - assistant workmen doing the very same work may be taken as the basic pay of the junior management assistant who entered the service of the management after 1973.

21. Point No.(vii): Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, submitted that only 30 members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association are having grievance against the junior management assistants service contracts, that 30 employees out of 121 belonging to the Junior Management Assistants' Association have subsequently resigned from the Association as seen from the resignation letters marked as Exhibit M. 77 series and that the junior management assistants contract system need not be upset at least in respect of those 30 junior management assistants. The Tribunal in Para. 29 of the award has found that the resignations of the 30 members shown in Exhibit M. 77 series cannot be true and voluntary. We must point out that the above finding of the Tribunal that the resignations of 30 members as shown in Exhibit M. 77 series cannot be true and voluntary is not based on any evidence. We have carefully perused Exhibit M. 77 series and we are satisfied that there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the resignation letters marked as Exhibit M. 77 series. During the course of the hearing of these writ appeals and writ petitions, the counsel for the management filed a memo before us which reads as follows:

“MEMO FILED BY THE APPELLANT

Out of the 26 persons who have accepted the first award, dated 29 December 1986, the following persons, who are no longer interested in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 and have resigned from the respondent association, have signed affidavits.

(1) R. Nageswaran

(2) C.B Balasubramaniam

(3) Viswanathan

(4) K. Harinathan

(5) Koil Pillai

(6) M. Sudhakar

(7) P.D Ramabadran

(8) S. Balakrishnan

(9) V.G Vijayakumar

(10) K.R Chidambaram

(11) D. Subramani

(12) S. Rajagopal

(13) S. Ramakrishnan

(14) V. Ramamurthy

(15) P.C Abraham

(16) P. Nandagopal

(17) A.J Bastian

(18) V. Gurusamy

(19) K. Mahalingam

(20) C.T Balasubramaniam

(21) R.S Krishnan

(22) C. Ramaswamy

(23) V.K Narayanan

(24) K. Venkatesan.

As far as Sri S. Vaidheeswaran is concerned he has not signed any affidavit since he does not want to be involved in any Court proceedings. As far as Sri M.S Nandakumar is concerned he has resigned from service and relieved from 15 November 1993.”

The counsel for the management also produced affidavits of 23 junior management assistants referred to in the memo referred above stating that they have resigned from the membership of the Junior Management Assistants' Association voluntarily and that they have accepted the benefits of the award, dated 29 December 1986, in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 and that they are not interested in the said Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 any further. Sri N.G.R Prasad, learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association, contended that the affidavits filed before us in the course of hearing of these matters cannot be accepted as they are not voluntary. We do not agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association. In view of the fact that there is nothing to doubt the genuineness of Exhibit M. 77 series and in view of the fact that the 23 Junior Management Assistants' have filed affidavit before us confirming the fact that resignation from the membership of the Junior Management Assistants' Association, we are of the view that the award of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, will not apply to those junior management assistants who have voluntarily resigned from the Junior Management Assistants' Association as evidenced by Exhibit M. 77 series. Further the award of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, will not apply to the case of junior management assistants who have accepted further promotion and who opted to retain the promotions. As pointed out by the Tribunal no junior management assistants can be permitted to enjoy the benefits under the award, dated 31 December 1992, and also the benefits under the junior management assistants service contracts. Point No.(vii) is answered accordingly.

Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992:

22. The subject-matter of this writ appeal are the demands of the Junior Management Assistants' Association relating to lockout, for extension of incentive payments to junior management assistants, for vehicle allowance and payment of vehicle maintenance allowance to outdoor assistants and for outstation allowance, being the issues (1), (4), (9) and (19) referred under the order of reference by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms No. 2313, dated 2 November 1984, to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Let us examine these issues one by one in the same order.

23. Issue No. 1: Issue No. 1 relates to lockout. This issue was dealt with by S. Ramalingam, J., and by the order, dated 20 September 1991, the learned Judge disposed of the said issue in the following term:

“7. After negotiation in this regard and after hearing both sides, this Court orders that the management would pay in addition to the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing payment of one month's wages, payment by the management of wages for a further period of fifty (50) days. There would not be any break in service. The strike is declared as not illegal. Time for payment four weeks.

8. Post these writ petitions for hearing on other issues pn 28 October 1991.”

24. Sri N.G.R Prasad, the learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association, submitted that, inasmuch as by the order, dated 20 September 1991, S. Ramalingam, J. has direct payment of wages for a further period of 50 days in addition to the award of the Tribunal directing payment of one month wages, the said wages directed to be paid for the further period of 50 days must be also taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of provident fund, gratuity and bonus to the workmen in question.

25. Per contra, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, contended that what was directed to be paid by S. Ramalingam, J., by order, dated 20 September 1991, was only ad hoc wages and therefore, the said ad hoc wages cannot be taken into account for the purpose of payment of provident fund, gratuity and bonus. S. Ramalingam, J., by the order, dated 20 September 1991, has declared that the strike resorted to by the workmen was not illegal. The learned Judge, further directed that the management should pay the workmen 50 days' wages in addition to wages for one month directed to be paid by the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Judge also held that there would not be any break in service. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the wages directed to the paid by the order, dated 20 September 1991, are not ad hoc wages, and, in accepting the contention of Sri Prasad, the learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association, that the wages directed to be paid by S. Ramalingam, J., for a period of 50 days in addition to he one month's wags directed to be paid to the workmen by the award of the Industrial Tribunal must be taken into account for the purposes of provident fund, gratuity and bonus. Consequently, issue (1) is answered accordingly.

26. Issue No. 4: This issue relates to the demand of the junior management assistants for extension of incentive payment to the junior management assistants. The contention of the learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association is that the junior management assistants are held to be workmen and if they are workmen, the junior management assistants are entitled to incentive payment as in the case of non-junior management assistant workmen in the unionised category and they must be put on par with the other workmen for the purpose of making incentive payments. There is merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the Junior Management Assistants' Association. We have already taken the view that the junior management assistants are workmen and on that basis held that the members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association are entitled to scales of pay, dearness allowance and house rent allowance admissible to non-junior management assistants workmen. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the junior management assistants are also entitled to incentive payment as in the case of non-junior management assistant workmen in the unionised category. Issue (4) is answered accordingly.

27. Issues Nos. 9 and 19: These issues relate to the demand by the Junior Management Assistants' Association for vehicle allowance and daily batta and demand for outstation allowance, similar to those paid to the non-junior management assistants workmen. No evidence was produced by the Junior Management Assistants' Association either before the Industrial Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge or before us to show that the other non-junior management assistants workmen in the unionised category are getting the allowance referred above. It is also clear from Exhibit W. 81 that none of the other non-junior management assistant workmen is securing any such benefits as claimed under issues (9) and (19). In these circumstances, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the demands of the Junior Management Assistants' Association made under issues (9) and (19). Therefore, issues (9) and (19) are answered against the Junior Management Assistants' Association. No arguments were advanced in respect of the issues other than those referred above. In view of our findings on issue No. 4, the order of the learned Single Judge and the award of the Tribunal, dated 29 December 1986, on issue (4) are liable to be set aside. In view of our findings on issues (9) and (19), the order of the Tribunal and that of the learned Single Judge on other issues which are the subject-matter of Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992 have to be confirmed.

Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992:

28. The question involved in this writ appeal is whether the appellant in this writ appeal who is a sales representative is a workman as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act. Sri N.G.R Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that whatever may be the position prior to the Amendment Act 46 of 1982, the addition of the word “operational” in the definition of “workmen” in S. 2(s) of the Act by the Amendment Act 46 of 1982, will have the effect of bringing the entire labour force engaged in an industry including sales representatives, except the managerial and such of the supervisory staff falling within the exception expressly indicated in the definition itself, would fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under the Act.

29. Relying upon the decisions in (1) Nirchiliya v. Safire Theatre, Madras [1990 - II L.L.N 4], (2) Mavatta Beedi, Thozhilalar (CITU) Sangam v. (Five Number) Beedi Factory, Melapalayam [1989 — II L.L.N 313], the learned counsel for the appellant contended that merely because the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, is applicable to the sales representatives, it cannot be said that the Industrial Disputes Act will not apply to them and relief can be claimed by the sales representatives on the basic of the provisions contained in both the welfare legislations. The learned counsel also submitted that the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act only applies to medical representatives engaged pharmaceutical industry and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act will apply to sales representatives employed in other industries. The learned counsel, further contended that the amendments introduced by Act 46 of 1982 to Ss. 2(rr) and 2(s) of the Act will go to show that sales representative is a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act.

30. Per contra, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, submitted that the Amendment Act 46 of 1982 made with effect from 21 August 1984, did not bring about any change in the legal position declared by Courts that sales representative is not a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act and that if the Amendment Act 46 of 1982 had any effect as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no need for the Parliament to amend the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, by the Amendment Act 48 of 1986, with effect from 23 November 1986, to exclude from the definition of sales promotion employees, those drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1,600 per mensem. The learned counsel for the management also contended that the continuance of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, even after the Amendment Act 46 of 1982 came into force with effect from 21 August 1984, is an indication to continue the old position under the Act with reference to the definition of “workman” under S. 2(s) of the Act as far as the sales representative is concerned. The further contention of the learned counsel for the management is that the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, is to apply in the first instance, to every establishment engaged in pharmaceutical industry; the said Act enables the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, to apply the provisions of the said Act to any other establishment engaged in any notified industry and if an industry is notified under the said Act, then the provisions of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, would be attracted to the employees working in those industries.

30-A. In the light of the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration in Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992:

(1) Whether a sales representative is a ‘workman’ as defined under S. 2(s) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by the Amendment Act 46 of 1982?

(2) Whether the addition of the word ‘operational’ in S. 2(s) of the Act by the Amendment Act 46 of 1982 will have the effect of bringing the sales representative within the definition of “workman” as contained in S. 2(s) of the Act?

31. Point No. 1. The term “workman” has been defined in S. 2(s) of the Act. It underwent amendments in 1956 and 1982 and as per the 1982 amendment, the definition of “workman” as contained in S. 2(s) of the Act is as follows:

“2(s) ‘workman’ means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or their employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”

In the 1982 Amendment, the word “operational” was included in the firs part of the definition of “workman” contained in S. 2(s) of the Act. The case of the management as seen from the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1989 is that Addison Paints and Chemicals, Ltd., Madras, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of paints, that in order to canvass the sale of their products, the company employs sales representatives whose only job is to canvass the sale of the products of the company, that the appellant was employed at the relevant time as a sales representative, that a sales representative is not a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act and that the appellant cannot seek recourse to proceed under the Act. The appellant was examined as W.W 4 before the Industrial Tribunal and he has admitted in his evidence that this work is to canvass for the sales and secure orders for the products of the company.

32. In May and Baker (India), Ltd. v. Their workmen [A.I.R 1961 S.C 678] (vide supra), the Supreme Court held that the duties of a person employed by a pharmaceutical concern as a representative for canvassing orders consisted mainly of canvassing and any clerical or manual work that he had to do was incidental to his main work of canvassing and could not take more than a small fraction of the time for which he had to work and he would not fall within the definition of “workman”. The Supreme Court in the above decision further held as follows:

“…. the designation of the employee was not of great moment and what was of importance was the nature of his duties.

If the nature of the duties is manual or clerical, then the person must be held to be a workman. On the other hand, if manual or clerical work is only a small part of the duties of the person concerned and incidental to his main work which is not manual or clerical, then such a person would not be a workman. It has, therefore, to be seen in each case from the nature of the duties whether a person employed is a workman or not, under the definition of that word….”

33. In Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Ltd. v. Burmah-Shell Management Staff Association [A.I.R 1971 S.C 922], the Apex Court while dealing with the question whether a sales engineering representative was a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act, as it stood then, held that for an employee in an industry to be a workman under S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is manifest that he must be employed to do skilled or unskilled manual, clerical or technical or supervisory work and if the work done by the employee is not such a nature, he would not be a “workman” under S. 2(s) of the Act.

34. An Act called the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, was enacted by the Parliament to regulate certain conditions of service of sales promotion employees in certain establishments. Section 1(4) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act says that the said Act shall apply in the first instance to every establishment engaged in pharmaceutical industry. Section 1(5) provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any other establishment engaged in any notified industry. Section 3 gives power to the Central Government to declare certain industries to be notified industries. Section 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act defines a “sales promotion employee” as follows:

“2(d). ‘sales promotion employee’ means any person by whatever name called (including an apprentice) employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business, or both, but does not include any such person—

(i) who, being employed or engaged in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding sixteen hundred rupees per mensem; or

(ii) who is employed or engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity.”

The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, published in the Gazette of India, dated 14 May 1975, Part II, S. 2, page 100 runs as follows:

“As a result of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of May and Baker (India), Ltd. v. Their workmen, (1971) 1 SCC 678 : [A.I.R 1971 S.C 678], the persons engaged in sales promotion do not come within the purview of the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as such they have no protection regarding security of employment and other benefits under the Act. These persons, particularly the medical representatives in the pharmaceutical industry have been demanding from time to time that they should be covered by Industrial Disputes Act. On a petition made by the Federation of Medical Representatives Associations of India, the Committee on Petitions (Rajya Sabha) in its thirteenth report submitted in 1972 came to the conclusion that—

‘the ends of social justice to this class of people will not be met only by suitable amending the definition of the term, “workman” in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in a manner that the medical representatives, are also covered by the definition of ‘workman’ in the said Act.’

The Committee also felt that other workers engaged in sales promotion should similarly be considered as workmen.

(2) Keeping in view the justification of the demand of the sales promotion employees, and the recommendation made by the Committee on Petitions, and taking other relevant aspects into consideration, it is considered more appropriate to have a separate legislation for governing the conditions of service of sales promotion employees instead of amending the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to bring such employees within its purview.

(3) The Bill seeks to achieve the above aspects.”

35. The object sought to be achieved by the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, as stated above and the employees covered by the said Act, also go to show that a sales representative would not come within the definition of “workman” under S. 2(s) of the Act and that was the reason for enacting the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. The above position is clear from the following observations of the Supreme Court in T.P Srivastava v. M/S National Tobacco Co. Of India Limited., Ltd. [1992 — I L.L.N 13], in Para. 3, at page 15:

“In order to come within the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act as it stood in the year 1973, when the appellant's service was terminated, the employee has to be under the employment to do the work of one of the types of work referred to in the section, i.e, manual, skilled, unskilled and/or clerical in nature. The finding of the Tribunal on the nature of the work is a finding on a question of fact and it is also borne out by the document produced before the Labour Court. It is seen from the facts found that the appellant was employed to do canvassing and promoting sales for the company. The duties involve the suggesting of ways and means to improve the sales, a study of the type or status of the public to whom the product has to reach and a study of the market condition. He was also required to suggest about the publicity in markets and melas, advertisements including the need for posters, hoardings and cinema slides. These duties do require the imaginative and creative mind which could not be termed as either manual, skilled, unskilled or clerical in nature. The work of supervising the other local salesmen was part of his work considered by the Tribunal as only incidental to his main work of canvassing and promotion in the area of his operation. Such a person cannot be termed as a workman is also the ratio of the decision of this Court in Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India, Ltd. v. Burmah-Sheel Management and Staff Association [A.I.R 1971 S.C 922], D.S Nagaraj v. Labour Officer, Kurnool [(1973) 1 L.L.N 161], J.J Dechane Distributors v. State of Kerala [1975 - II L.L.N 353]. We may also refer to the subsequent passing of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. This Act defines sales promotion employee as meaning a person employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business or both. This Act is to apply in the first instance to every establishment engaged in pharmaceutical industry. It enables the Central Government by notification to apply the provisions to any other establishment engaged in any notified industry. If an industry is notified under this Act then the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would also be attracted to these types of workmen. This is a subsequent enactment and it is not applicable to the termination in the instant case which was long prior to the enactment of this Act. Further no notification under this Act bringing the provisions of the employees like that of the company has been made under the provisions of this Act. The object of this enactment and the employees covered by the enactment also go to show that persons employed for sales promotion normally would not come within the definition of workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.”

The Apex Court in the above decision held, that the sales promotion employee is not a “workman” under S. 2(s) of the Act and the reference of the dispute by the Government to the Labour Court was not competent.

36. In S.G Pharmaceuticals v. V.D Padamwar [1989 - II L.L.N 833], a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a medical representative whose main function is to do canvassing for promotion of sales of the products of his employer is not a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act.

37. From the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, it is clear that an employee engaged in any industry to become a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act must be employed to do the types of work, namely, manual, unskilled, skilled, clerical and supervisory work enumerated in S. 2(s) of the Act and a sales representative whose main work is to do canvassing for the promotion of sales of the products of his employer and who is not doing any type of work enumerated in S. 2(s) of the Act would be out of the scope of the word “workman” coming under S. 2(s) of the Act prior to its Amendment by Act 46 of 1982. Therefore, it has to be held that a sales representative is not a “workman” coming under S. 2(.s) of the Act prior to its Amendment by Act 46 of 1982. Consequently, point No. 1 is answered in the negative.

38. Point No. 2: The contention of Sri N.G.R Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the addition of the word “operational” in the definition of “workman” in S. 2(s) of the Act by Amendment Act 46 of 1982 will have the effect of bringing sales representative within the definition of “workman” contained in S. 2(s) of the Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in A. Ram Mohan v. Labour Court, Bangalore [(1989) 1 L.L.N 913], Promer Sales (Private), Ltd. v. Manohar Sondhur [1993 - II L.L.N 235]. We are unable to accept the above contention of Sri N.G.R Prasad. The 1982 Amendment introduces the following three changes in the Act:

(a) The word “operational” has been included in the first part of the definition of ‘workman’ in S. 2(s) of the Act.

(b) Any commission payable on promotion of sales or business or both is included in the definition of wages under S. 2(rr)(iv) of the Act.

(c) In the case of person employed in supervisory capacity, the ceiling on wages was increased from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,600 per mensem under S. 2(s)(iv) of the Act.

39. The expression “operational” has not been defined in the Act. Workers doing operational work may be called operatives. According to Black's Law Dictionary, an “operative” is “a workman, a labour man, an artisan, particularly one employed in factories.” The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says that an operative is a workman “concerned with manual, or mechanical work” or “a person engaged in work or, production as a workman or artisan.”

The Webster's New World Dictionary gives the following meaning to the term “operational.”

(1) of the operation of a device, system, process, etc.,

(2) (a) that can be used or operated

(b) in use; operating

(3) of or ready for use in a military operation — operationally, adv.

Words and Phrases Permanent Edition gives the meaning of the term “operative.” An operative is one who obtains his living by coarse manual labour as distinct from professional services. Ericsen v. Brown [N.Y 38 Barb. 390, 392]. All labourers are not operatives. Generally speaking, an operative is a person employed as a workman in a mill or factory; a skilled workman; an artisan; especially one who operates a machine in a factory… The specific case of the management is that the work of a sales representative is to do canvassing for promoting sales of his employer's products. As already pointed out, the appellant as W.W 4 has admitted in his evidence that as sales representative, his main work is to canvassing for the promotion of sales of his employer's products and book orders. From the materials available on record in the present case, it is clear that the main work of the appellant as a sales representative is to do canvassing for promotion of sales and book orders of his employer's products. The Apex Court and the High Courts have repeatedly held that the work of sales representative whose main work is to do canvassing for the purpose of promoting sales of his employer's product is neither manual, clerical, technical, nor supervisory and hence he is not a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act. Considering the meaning that can be given to the expression “operational” and the nature of the work done by the sales representative, namely, canvassing for the purpose of promoting sales of his employer's products, we are of the view that such work done by the sales representatives cannot be considered as “operational” work. In view of the fact that the main work of the sales representative being promotion of sales of his employer's products, it has to be held that such work of the sales representative does not come within the categories of manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work enumerated in S. 2(s) of the Act as amended by Act 46 of 1982 and, therefore, the sales representative is not a “workman” as defined in the amended S. 2(s) of the Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the addition of the word “operational” in the definition of “workman” in S. 2(s) of the Act by Amendment Act 46 of 1982 will not have the effect of bringing the sales representatives within the definition of “workman” under the Act.

40. As already pointed out, the object of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, and the employees covered by the said Act will also go to show that the sales representative would not come within the definition of “workman” under the Act and that was why the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, was enacted. Further, it must be remembered that by Act 46 of 1982, S. 2(s) of the Act was amended with effect from 21 August 1984, and if the object of Act 46 of 1982 is to include sales representative within the definition of “workman” under the Act, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the management, there was no need for the Parliament to amend the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, by the Amendment Act 48 of 1986, with effect from 23 November 1986, so as to exclude from the definition of sales promotion employees drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1,600 per mensem. It is significant to note that although the Legislature was aware of the amendment introduced to S. 2(s) of the Act by adding the expression “operational” by Amendment Act 46 of 1982, the Legislature by the Amendment Act 48 of 1986 has amended the definition of Sales Promotion Employees contained in S. 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, excluding from the definition of sales promotion employees, persons drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1,600 per month and such deliberate act on the part of the Legislature can be attributed to its intention to continue the old position under the Act prior to Amendment Act 46 of 1982 with reference to the definition of “workman” under S. 2(s) of the Act, so far as the sales representative is concerned and to exclude sales representative from the definition of “workman” under the Act.

41. In Glaxo Laboratories (India), Ltd. v. State Of Kerala [1992 - I L.L.N 822], a learned Judge of the Kerala High Court has taken a similar view that sales medical representative by their very nature of their work will not come within the definition of “workman” in S. 2(s) of the Act and that the various duties performed by them in the discharge of their official work do not come within any of the categories of manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward.

42. In A. Ram Mohan v. Labour Court, Bangalore [1989 - I L.L.N 913] (vide supra), relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, relying on the observations made in S.K Verma v. Mahesh Chandra [1983 - II L.L.N 637], held that an employee working as a sales promotion representative of a pharmaceutical concern would come within the definition of “workman” in S. 2(s) of the Act. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court based his findings on the conclusion arrived at in the decision in S.K Verma case (vide supra). The entire labour force engaged in an industry except the managerial and such of the supervisory force falling within the expression expressly indicated in the definition itself would fall within the definition of the word “workman”. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court relied on the following observations in Paras. 4 and 5, at page 640 of the Supreme Court in S.K Verma case [1983 - II L.L.N 637] (vide supra):

“The words ‘any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work’ are not intended to limit or narrow the amplitude of the definition of ‘workman’; on the other hand they indicate and emphasise the broad sweep of the definition which is designed to cover all manner of persons employed in an industry, irrespective of whether they are engaged in skilled work or unskilled work, manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. Quite obviously the broad intention is to take in the entire ‘labour force’ and exclude the ‘managerial force.’ That, of course, is as it should be. It is trite to say that the Industrial Disputes Act is a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between labour and management in an industry and for that purpose, it makes provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. It is, therefore, necessary to interpret the definitions of ‘industry’, ‘workman’, ‘industrial dispute’, etc., so as not to whittle down but to advance the object of the Act. Disputes between the forces of labour and management are not to be excluded from the operation of the Act by giving narrow and restricted meaning to expressions in the Act. The Parliament could never be credited with the intention of keeping out of the purview of the legislation small bands of employees who, though not on the managerial side of the establishment, are yet to be denied the ordinary rights of the forces of labour for no apparent reason at all…..”

43. In May and Baker (India), Ltd. v. Their workmen [A.I.R 1961 S.C 678] (vide supra), and Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Ltd. v. Burmah-Shell Management Staff Association [A.I.R 1971 S.C 922] (vide supra), the Apex Court, directly dealt with the question whether a sales representative is a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act prior to its Amendment by Act 46 of 1982 and held that they are not “workmen” because, they are not doing any of the categories of the work specified in S. 2(s) of the Act. It must be pointed out that in S.K Verma case [1983 — II L.L.N 637] (vide supra), the Supreme Court was only dealing with the question whether the Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation is a “workman.” The Supreme Court after examining the facts of the case found that the Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation are generally placed on par with the subordinates and clerical staff and hence a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation is a “workman.” Therefore, the observations of the Supreme Court in S.K Verma case (vide supra), has to be understood in the light of the facts and circumstances present in that case. Hence we are of the view that the observations of the Supreme Court in S.K Verma case (vide supra), cannot be taken to be contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in May and Baker India, Ltd. v. Their workmen (vide supra) and Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Ltd. v. Burmah-Shell Management Staff Association (vide supra). We must also point out that the proposition laid down in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen (vide supra), was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu [1988 - II L.L.N 608], and it was pointed out in Para. 8, at page 611 that in order to be a workman, a person should be one who satisfied the following conditions:

“(i) He should be a person employed in an industry for hire or reward;

(ii) he should be engaged in skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work; and

(iii) he should not be a person falling under any of the four clauses, i.e, (i) to (iv) mentioned in the definition of ‘workman’ in S. 2(s) of the Act.”

44. Again, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Ram Mohan v. Labour Court, Bangalore [1989 - I L.L.N 913] (vide supra), has been reversed, though for other reasons on appeal by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Further the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal rightly refused to place reliance on the decision in Ram Mohan v. Labour Court, Bangalore (vide supra), for the reasons recorded in Para. 12 of his order which reads thus:

“It is seen from the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court that the employee before the said Court was held to be not a sales promotion employee under the 1976 Act referred to supra the worker concerned having been found to draw a monthly salary of Rs. 1050 so as to entitle him to invoke the provisions of 1947 Act. That apart, the case considered by the Karnataka High Court was also found to be one to which the amended definition of S. 2(s) which came into force with effect from 21 August 1984, had no application or relevance, the termination in the said case having taken place on 24 September 1982.”

45. In these circumstances, we are unable to persuade ourself to accept the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in A. Ram Mohan v. Labour Court, Bangalore [1989 — I L.L.N 913] (vide supra), and by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Promer Sales (Private) Ltd. v. Manohar Sondhur [1993 - II L.L.N 235] (vide supra), for coming to the conclusion that a sales representative in a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act.

46. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the addition of the word “operational” in S. 2(s) of the Act by the Amendment Act 46 of 1982 and the amendment of S. 2(rr) of the Act by including commission payable on promotion of sales or business or both, in the definition of wages under S. 2(rr) will not have the effect of bringing the sales representative within the definition of “workman” as contained in S. 2(s) of the Act. Consequently, point No. 2 is answered in the negative. In these circumstances, we see no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge in holding that the sales representative is not a “workman” as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act, and, therefore, Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992 is liable to be dismissed.

47. In the result, the writ appeals and writ petitions shall stand disposed of in the following terms:

(1) Writ Appeal No. 802 of 1992: In view of our findings on points i to iii, Writ Appeal No. 802 of 1982 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.

(2) Writ Petitions Nos. 12476 and 13814 of 1993: In view of our findings on points iv to vi, the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992, in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 with regard to mode of fixation of pay-scales as found in Paras. 34 and 36 of the award is set aside and matter is remitted to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of fixing wage-scales for the junior management assistant in question as on 2 November 1984 according to law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. To that extent Writ Petition No. 13814 of 1993 filed by the Junior Management Assistants' Association is partly allowed and in other respects Writ Petition No. 13814 of 1993 is dismissed. In other respects other order of the Tribunal dated 31 December 1992 in Industrial Dispute No. 83/84 is confirmed and consequently Writ Petition 12476 of 1993 is dismissed. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from 4 April 1994 on which date the parties are to appear before the Tribunal.

(3) Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992: In view of our findings on issues (1) and (4), Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992 is partly allowed and we issue the following direction to the management in Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992:

(a) The management shall take into account the wages directed to be paid for the period of 50 days by S. Ramalingam, J. by the order, dated 20 September 1992 in Writ Petition No. 3419 of 1987 in addition to the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing payment of one month's wages, for the purpose of payment of provident fund, gratuity and bonus to the workmen in question.

(b) The members of the Junior Management Assistants' Association shall be entitled to incentive payments in the case of non-junior management assistants. Workmen in the unionised category. In other respects Writ Appeal No. 787 of 1992 is dismissed.

(4) Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992: In view of our findings on points i and ii, Writ Appeal No. 788 of 1992 is dismissed.

48. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Addison Paints And Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Association v. Addison Paints And Chemicals Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant / Management (Addison Paints and Chemicals Ltd.)

Respondent / Junior Management Assistants' Association

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Addison Paints And Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Association v. Addison Paints And Chemicals Ltd.

Comments