189
MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION
A
CORPORATION LTD.
_v._
THEIR WORKMEN & ORS.
_October_ 8, 1975
[A. ALAGIR!SWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] B
_Industrial dispute-Reference of dispute_ _to_ _arbitration--Settlement-lnter-_
_Pretation_ _of_ _its clauses._
The workmen of the appellant consisted of three categories : regular staff,
work-charged staff and casual labour (muster-roll employees). By a settle
ment between the parties, it was agreed that certain questions like revision of
pay, etc., should be referred to arbitration. Before the settlement, however,
wl!ges of muster roll workmen were raised to a ·minimum of Rs. 3 /- and in C
respect of the same category of persons who were drawing Rs. 3 /- or more
per day, the rise was 50 paise per person. In the case of this category of
workmen there had also been an earlier settlement in 1966. The Industrial
Tribunal, in its award, allowed an increase of 25 per cent in the wages of all
workmen including the mnster roll workmen. The appellant sought to quash
the award of the Tribunal but the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : The wages of muster roll workmen was not one of the points agreed
to be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal
was acting beyond its jurisdictfon in allowing 25 per cent increase in the wages
of the muster roll workmen. The only reason the Industrial Tribunal has
given is that the point under reference by itself did not exclude muster roll
workmen and that it clearly mentioned that the parties had agreed that the
demands regarding the revision of pay scales of the workmen should be· referred
to arbitration and no exception had been made against the muster roll workmen. That clause in the settlement should be read along with the rest of the
settlement and the charter of demands. Had that been done, there would
have been no room for the misunderstanding. The revision of pay scales
of the muster roll workmen was already covered by . the settlement.
[l92B; 191F·G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2163-2164
of 1969.
D
E
### •
' From the Judgment and Order dated the 17th March, 1969 of the F
Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 477 and 479
of 1968.
_F._ _S._ _Nariman,_ _K._ _J._ _John_ and _!._ _B. Dadachanji,_ for the Appellants .
_J._ _N. Chaubey_ _(In_ _person)_ Respondent No. 1.
_R._ C. _Prasad,_ for State of Bihar.. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.~The appellant, the National Prqjects Construction Corporation Ltd., was engaged in execution of two projects,
Chandan Dam Project and the Gandak Dam Project. On 31st January
1967 the N.P.C.C. Workers' Union of the Chandan Dam Project gave
a notice of strike and on 1st April 1967 the Labour Union· of the H
Gandak Dam Project gave a similar notice. These notices were
accompanied by a charter of demands which are practically the same
### -~
A
B
# c
0
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976] 2 S.C.R.
in both cases. Thereafter a settlement was arrived at with both these
Unions on 11-4-1967 in the presence of the Labour Commissioner,
Bihar the terms of which were also similar. By that settlement certain questions were agreed to be referred to arbitration and those
questions are found in paragraph 4 of both the settlements. The dispute with both the Labour Unions was accordingly referred to the
arbitration of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna
on 3rd May, 1967. The arbitrator's award was sought to be quashed
by means of a writ petition filed by the appellant before the High
Court of Patna. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
writ petition except in respect of one point which is not important for
the purpose of this appeal. This appeal is filed against the judgment
of the Patna High Court by way of certificate granted by the High
Court.
The points canvassed before us were regarding the wages of the ·
muster-roll workmen and the project allowance for them. In the
settlements referred to earlier the relevant portion regarding these
workmen reads thus :
"Keeping in view the drought conditions in the State and
consequential steep rise in prices of commodities since the
wages of workmen in this unit were increased in the year
1966, management agrees that no muster roll workmen will
be paid less than Rs. 3/- per day with effect from 11-4-1967.
Management agrees to the flat increase of 0.50 paise
per day per workman in the daily wage rates of such muster
E roll workmen who are getting Rs. 3/- or above."
F
G
H
Jn these two projects there were three categories of workmen (1)
regular staff, (2) worK:-charged staff, and (3) casual labour (borne
on muster-roll). The regular staff consisted of engineering, administrative, accounts and finance, supervisory as well as non-supervisory
personnel. The work-charged staff was monthly ·paid and was of two
categories, that is, civil and mechanical. The casual workman was one
whose employment was of an occasional or casual nature and was
borne on the muster-roll on daily wages for such purpose. Jn fact the
charter of demands by both the Labour Unions also makes clear this
distinction betwee,n muster-roll employees, who are called daily rated
workmen, and work charged employees and regular employees. The
demand in respect of the muster roll employees as far a,s the wages
are concerned was that they should be given a minimum of Rs. ·4/per day. Another demand was. that the muster roll employees who
had served for 240 days must be brought on work charged cadre. By
the settlements already referred to the wages of the muster-roll workmen were raised to a minimum of Rs. 3/- and an increase of 50 paise
in the case· of persons who were getting Rs. 3 /- or more earlier. In
respect of them there had also been earlier-settlement in 1966. When,
therefore, in clause 4 of the settlement it was agreed that certain questions were to be referred to arbitration that can only be in reference to
workmen other than muster-roll workmen. That clause in the settle·
rnent reads thus :
MANAGEMENT N.P.C.C. LTD. v. WORKMEN _(Alagiriswami,_ J.)
"4. Parties agree for reference of the demands regarding
revision of pay scales, introducing _of C.P.F. Scheme, house
rent allowance, dearness allowance, project allowance, tr~vel
ling allowance and security of service of workmen to arbitration for which they are submitting separate petitions as
required under the Industrial Disputes Act and the rules
framed thereunder to the State Government. The Arbitrator
will be requested to give his award within two months."
191
A
B
# c
D
E
F
G
~ I
## •
As the revision of pay scales of the muster roll workmen was already
covered by the settlement the revision of their pay scales was not one
of the points agreed to be referred to arbitration. Nor can the question of introducing C.P.F. scheme, house rent allowance, dearness
aJlowance, project allowance, travelling allowance arise in their c~se.
The daily rated or muster roll workmen would be locaJly recruited
workmen.
What the Industrial Tribunal has done is to allow a 25 per cent
increase in the wages of all labour including muster roll workmen.
The result was that the muster roll workmen got a double advantage,
that is, the increase which they secured as a result of settlement and
the further increase of 25 per cent granted l;ly the Tribunal whereas
the other categories of workmen got only the 25 per cent increase.
It appears that before this settlement the dail/y rates of muster roll
workmen were Rs. 1.75 in Chandan Dam and Rs. 2.25 in Gandak
Dam. As a result of the settlement they got more than 40 per cent
- which was demanded in the charter of demands in the strike notice in
respect of other categories. In that charter what was demanded for
muster roll workmen was a minimum daily wage of Rs. 4/-. In any
case these things make it absolutely clear that the question of pay
scales of the muster roll workmen was decided as a result of the
settlement and that was not one of the questions referred to the arbitrator. The Industrial Tribunal was therefore acting beyond its jurisdiction in allowing a 25 per cent increase in the wages of the muster
roll workmen. The only reason the Industrial Tribunal has given for
holding that the wages of the muster roll workmen was also a matter
referred to it is that the point under reference by itself does not exclude
muster roll workmen and that it clearly mentions that the parties had
agreed that the demands regarding revision of pay scales etc. of the
workmen should be referred to arbitration and no exception has been
made ~ga!nst the muster r?ll workmen. As we have already pointed
out this 1s a wrong readmg of the reference. That clause in the
settlement should be read along with the rest of the settlement and
charter of demands and if that had been done there would have been
no room for this misunderstanding.
On t_he other hand· the only point relied upon by the High Court
for holdmg that the wages of the muster roJI workmen was also one
of the items referred to arbitration is that the reference in the case
of Chandan Dam Project mentions all the two thousand workmen H
employe~ in the proj~ct a~ workme~ affected or likely to be affected
by the dispute. But 1t failed to noticq that the similar agreement in
A
B
# c
D
E
F
G
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976] 2 S.C.R.
respe~t of Gandak Dam Project does not refer to the number of workmen mvolved at all: Therefore no distinction can be made between
!he two c.as~s on this ground. The document hy which the reference
1s
1 [made is m ] [,a ] [stan?ard form which mentions the total number of ]
\\ orkmen emp:oyed m the undertaking affected and the estimated
nu~ber of workmen affected ?r likely to be affected by settlement. In
fillm$ tho~e columns the parties may or may not necessarily take into
cons1derat10n the number of workmen whose case is already covered
by the set!le~ent and no argument COJJld be built upon the basis
of .t~e entnes m those two columns. We are therefore clearly of the
op~mon that the wages of the muster roll workmen was not one of the
pomts agreed to be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication.
As regards the project allowance the Industrial Tribunal took the
view that the mere fact that the work charged staff and the muster
roll staff are appointed for a particular work and some of them happen
to be local people should not stand in the way of their getting project
allowance and those of these two classes of workmen who come from
distant places should be given this allowance in the same way as the
members of the regular staff. The Industrial Tribunal itself realises
that the basis on which project allowance is granted to the regular
staff is to compensate them for depriving them of the amenities in
posting them to out of the way places during construction periods.
Once that is admitted the question of giving the work charged workmen
and the muster roll workmen, who do not have a regular place where
they are expected to work and in whose case therefore. there is no
question of their being posted to any place, any project allowance
would not arise. The question of posting can arise onLy in the case
of regular staff. Moreover, it is difficult to check in each case who
among those two categories of staff have come on transfer from other
places and belong to places more than 50 miles away. Also there
can be no question of work charged workmen and muster roll workmen
coming on transfer. This part of its order seems to arise out of a
confusion of thought on the part of the Industrial Tribunal. On the
other hand it cannot be said that no question regarding muster roll
workmen was at all referred to arbitration. Clause 4 is all comprehensive. One item in the charter of demands was project allowance for
all workmen and the settlement covered only wages for the muster
roll workmen. The High Court has not dealt with the question of
project allowance at all. Apparently this question was not urged
before the High Court. Nor is it raised in the petition for leave.
Before us only the question of project allowance granted to muster
roll workmen was challenged. There is therefore no justification for
interfering with the award of the Industrial Tribunal in so far as the
question of project allowance is concerned even though it may be
difficult . to work it in practice.
In the result therefore the award of the Arbitrator is set aside
insofar as it granted a 25 per cent wage increase to the muster roH
workmen. There will be no order as to costs.
P.B.R. _Appeals allowed._
