{"id":126715,"date":"1971-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971"},"modified":"2016-10-25T20:41:45","modified_gmt":"2016-10-25T15:11:45","slug":"the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971","title":{"rendered":"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 319, \t\t 1972 SCR (1) 373<\/div>\n
Author: P J Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE WORKMEN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGREAVES COTTON & CO.  LTD. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/08\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nBENCH:\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nMITTER, G.K.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR  319\t\t  1972 SCR  (1) 373\n 1971 SCC  (2) 658\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute-Workers in supervisory capacity  getting\nless  than Rs. 500\/per mensem-If they could raise a  dispute\nregarding wages which would take the salary beyond Rs. 5001-\n-When  workmen\tcan  raise  a dispute  about  the  terms  of\nemployment of non-workmen.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThis  Court, in appeal against the award of  the  Industrial\nTribunal   in  disputes\t between  the  appellants  and\t the\nrespondents, confirmed the wage scale and dearness allowance\nfixed  by  the\tIndustrial Tribnual  for  the  clerical\t and\nsubordinate staff, but set aside the wage scale and dearness\nallowance fixed for factory workmen and remanded the  matter\nto  the\t Tribunal for fresh fixation.  When the\t matter\t was\ntaken  up  by the Tribunal the workmen\tcontended  that\t the\ndispute\t regarding foremen or supervisors was, concluded  by\nthe  judgment  of this Court on the ground  that  they\twere\nincluded in subordinate staff.\tThe Tribunal, however,\theld\nthat the supervisors were not workmen within the meaning  of\nthe  Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and hence the  claim\t for\nrevision  of  wages and dearness allowance payable  to\tthem\nshould be rejected.\nIn appeal by special leave to this Court, on the questions :\n(1)  Whether  the case of supervisors was  remanded  to\t the\nTribunal  for adjudication; (2) whether it was open  to\t the\nrespondents to contend for the first time after remand\tthat\nthe  Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix the wage scale\t and\ndearness  allowance of supervisors; (3) Whether\t supervisors\ngetting\t less  than  Rs. 500\/- per mensem  on  the  date  of\nreference  could  raise the dispute  regarding\twages  which\nwould  take  their 'salary beyond Rs. 500  per\tmensem;\t (4)\nWhether,  if  the  supervisors\twere  all  non-workmen,\t the\nappellants  could  raise  a dispute  about  their  terms  of\nemployment, and (5) whether in fact none of the\t supervisors\nwas  drawing less than' Rs. 500 per mensem when\t the  matter\nwas  taken  up on remand and the  Tribunal  was,  therefore,\nright in rejecting the appellant's claim for fixation of the\nwage scale and dearness allowance of supervisors.\nHELD  :\t (1)  The  judgment of this  Court  shows  that\t the\nsubordinate   staff   and  factory  workmen   were   treated\nseparately.  This Court in remanding the case of the factory\nworkmen\t had under contemplation all those workmen,  who  on\nthe  date  of  reference, were\temployed  in  a\t supervisory\ncapacity and drawing less than Rs. 500.\t There is nothing in\nthe remand order to warrant the submission that the case of-\nsupervisors  was  included in the  category  of\t subordinate\nstaff, or, that it was not remanded. [381 C-D, F-H]\n(2)  It\t  was  open  to\t both  parties\tto  raise  all\t the\ncontentions  that were open to them, because, on remand\t the\nwage structure of the factory workers, including basic\twage\nand  dearness  allowance, had to be  considered\t afresh..  A\nreference to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the award, to which the\nspecial\t leave was confined, showed that both  parties\twere\nproceeding  on the basis that the Tribunal had\tjurisdiction\nto  deal  with those supervisors who, under  the  Act,\twere\nworkmen. [382 A-C]\n(3)  The  Tribunal bad jurisdiction to consider revision  of\nwages,\tdearness allowance and other emoluments so  long  as\nthere is a category of\n374\nworkmen who though employed in a supervisory capacity,\twere\ndrawing\t less  than Rs. 500\/-.\tEven if they ask for  a\t pay\nstructure which takes their salary beyond Rs. 500\/- that  by\nitself does not preclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to\ndetermine  what is the proper wage structure for that  class\nor category of workmen.\t Once a Tribunal is vested with\t the\njurisdiction  to entertain the dispute it does not cease  to\nhave  that jurisdiction merely because the claim  made\tgoes\nbeyond\tthe wages which takes workmen out of  that  category\nand makes them non-workmen.  What has to be seen is  whether\non  date  of reference there was any dispute in\t respect  of\nworkmen\t which\tcould  be  referred under  the\tAct  to\t the\nTribunal.   Therefore, supervisory staff drawing  less\tthan\nRs.. 500\/- per mensem cannot be debarred from claiming\tthat\nthey should draw more than Rs. 500\/presently that is, at the\nvery  commencement  of inquiry or at Some  future  stage  in\ntheir service.\tThey can only be deprived of the benefits if\nthey are non-workmen at the time they seek the protection of\nthe Act. [383 F-H; 384 A-C G-H]\n(4)  Workmen  can  raise  a dispute in\trespect\t of  matters\naffecting  the\temployment, conditions of  service  etc.  of\nworkmen\t as well as non-workmen, when they have a  community\nof  interest.  Such interest must be real and  positive\t and\nnot merely fanciful or remote.\tBut workmen cannot take up a\ndispute\t in  respect  of a class of employees  who  are\t not\nworkmen and in whose terms of employment the workmen have no\ndirect\tinterest  of their own., What interest\tsuffices  as\ndirect\tis  a  question of fact; but as long  as  there\t are\npersons\t in  the category of workmen in respect\t of  whom  a\ndispute\t has  been  referred  it cannot\t be  said  that\t the\nTribunal has no jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact\tthat\nsome  or  many\tof them may become  non-workmen\t during\t the\npendency of the dispute. [385 A-D; 387 H; 388 A-B]\nAll  India  Reserve Bank of India Employees  Association  v,\nReserve\t Bank  of  India, [1966] 1 S.C.R.,  25,\t Workmen  of\nDimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea  Estate,\nA.I.R.<\/a>\t1958 S.C. 353, Workmen v. Dahingeapara\tTea  Estate,\nA.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1026, Western India Automobile\t Association\nv.  Industrial\tTribunal,  Bombay,  [1949]  L.L.J.  245\t and\nStandard  Vacuum  Refining  Company India  v.  Its  Workmen,<\/a>\n[1960] 3 S.C.R. 466, followed.\n(5)  In the present case, however, on the evidence, it\tmust\nbe  held that when the matter was taken up on  remand  there\nwere  no supervisors drawing less than Rs. 500\/- per  mensem\nand  hence,  there were no employees who were working  in  a\nsupervisory  capacity  who can be said to  be  workmen.\t  If\nthere are no workmen of the category with respect to whom  a\ndispute\t ,has been referred, the Tribunal cannot  be  called\nupon to prescribe a wage structure for non-existing  workmen\nnor  does it have jurisdiction to do so.  The  dispute\twith\nrespect\t to them, must be deemed to have elapsed. [388\tC-F;\n389 G-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  1239  to
\n1241 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by  special leave from the Award dated\t October  1,
\n1965  of  the Industrial Tribunal,  Maharashtra,  Bombay  in
\nReference (I.T.) Nos. 84, 112 and 121 of 1959.
\nK.   T. Sule, M. G. Phadnis and Vineet Kumar, for the appel-
\nlants (in all the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
G.   B.\t Pai,  P.  N.  Tiwari  and  P.\tK.  Rele,  for\t the
\nrespondents (in all the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
 3 7 5
\nP.   Jaganmohan Reddy, J. These three Appeals are by the
\nP.  Jaganmohan\tReddy,J.   These three appeals\tare  by\t the
\nWorkmen of the three Respondent Companies respectively-Civil
\nAppeal\tNo.  1239 of 1966 is against Greaves  Cotton  &\t Co.
\nLtd.,  Civil  Appeal  No. 1240 of 1966\tis  against  Greaves
\nCotton\t& Crompton Parkinson Pvt.  Ltd., (later\t amalgamated
\nin 1966 and a new Company formed as Crompton Greaves  Ltd.),
\nand Civil Appeal No. 1241 of 1966 is against Kenyon  Greaves
\nPvt.  Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
On the 29th April 1958 a charter of demands was presented by
\nthe  Workmen  through their Trade Union Greaves\t Cotton\t and
\nAllied\tCompanies Employees Union to the Respondents in\t the
\nabove three Appeals and to Russian & Hornby India Pvt.\tLtd.
\nThese  demands were in respect of the wage  scale,  dearness
\nallowance,  leave  gratuity  etc.   After  the\tconciliation
\nproceedings  under  sub-section\t (4) of Section\t 12  of\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’).
\nhad failed, the disputes in respect of the aforesaid matters
\nwere  ultimately referred by the Maharashtra  Government  to
\nShri  P. D. Sawarkar for adjudication under Section  10\t (1)\n<\/p>\n
(d)  read  with 12 (5 ) of the Act.  In respect\t of  demands
\nmade  against Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., the  reference\t was
\nmade  on  8-4-59  and 24-12-59;\t against  Greaves  Cotton  &
\nCrompton  Parkinson Pvt.  Ltd. on 30-5-59 and  24-12-59\t and
\nthat against Kenyon Greaves Pvt.  Ltd., on 8-6-59 and 9-1-60
\nrespectively.\tWe  are here not concerned  with  the  other
\nreferences.  By an Award dated 3rd June, 15th and 16th\tJune
\n1960  the  Sawarkar  Tribunal revised the  wage\t scales\t and
\ndearness   allowance  of  all  workmen\temployed  by   those
\nCompanies.   Ruston  &\tHornby\tIndia  Pvt.   Ltd.  appealed
\nagainst the Awards to this Court which by a common  Judgment
\ndated  14th  November  1963 held that  the  wage  scale\t and
\ndearness allowance fixed by the Industrial Tribunal for\t the
\nclerical   and\tsubordinate  staff  did\t not   require\t any
\ninterference  and to that extent dismissed the\tAppeal.\t  It
\nhowever\t set  aside the wage scale  and\t dearness  allowance
\nfixed  for  factory workmen and remanded the matter  to\t the
\nTribunal  for  fresh  fixation of wage\tscale  and  dearness
\nallowance with these observations :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  allow  the  Appeal with  respect  to\t the
\n\t      factory workmen and send the case back to\t the
\n\t      Tribunal\t for  fixing  the   wage   structure
\n\t      including\t basic wages and dearness  allowance
\n\t      and  for granting adjustments in the light  of
\n\t      the  observations by us.\tThe new\t Award\tpur-
\n\t      suant to this Award will come into force\tfrom
\n\t      the same date namely April 1, 1959”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When the references were taken up by the Tribunal on  remand
\nthe  parties  agreed that in view of the  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt certain
\n3 76
\nreferences stood finally disposed of namely references dated
\n24th  December, 1959 by the Workmen in Greaves Cotton &\t Co.
\nLtd., and in Greaves Cotton & Crompton Parkinson Pvt.\tLtd.
\nand  that  dated 9th January 1960 by the workmen  of  Kenyon
\nGreaves Pvt.  Ltd.  The other three which were also held  to
\nbe finally disposed of were against the Workmen of Ruston  &
\nHornby\tIndia Pvt.  Ltd. with which we are not concerned  in
\nthis  Appeal.  The parties however, agreed that\t only  three
\nreferences  dated  8th April, 1959, 30th May  1959  and\t 8th
\nJune,  1959  by workmen against Greaves Cotton &  Co.  Ltd.,
\nGreaves\t Cotton & Crompton Parkinson Pvt.  Ltd., and  Kenyon
\nGreaves Pvt.  Ltd. survive.  During, the proceedings  before
\nthe Tribunal two questions were raised
\n\t      (1)   Whether  the Supreme Court remanded\t the
\n\t      matter  for  consideration of the\t dispute  in
\n\t      respect  of  certain categories  of  employees
\n\t      including those of the Supervisors; and
\n\t      (2)   Whether  it was open to the\t Respondents
\n\t      to claim fixation of service conditions on the
\n\t      basis of individual units.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the employees it was contended that the dispute
\nregarding  the Foremen or Supervisors who were\tincluded  in
\nthe term subordinate staff was concluded by the Judgment  of
\nthe Supreme Court inasmuch as it had dismissed the Appeal in
\nrespect of Clerical and subordinate staff.  The employers on
\nthe  other hand contended that the reference was in  respect
\nof  the six categories of Workmen specified in\tthe  Supreme
\nCourt Judgment which included Supervisors.  Shri Athalye who
\nwas the then Judge of the Industrial Court after hearing the
\nparties made an order on 14th July 1964, inter-alia  holding
\n:\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   That  the Companies were precluded\tfrom
\n\t      agitating\t that wage scales in  the  different
\n\t      factories\t should\t be fixed on  the  basis  of
\n\t      individual units; and
\n\t      (2)   that the Sawarkar Award was set aside by
\n\t      this  Court in respect of all  workmen  except
\n\t      those  who  could be  properly  classified  as
\n\t      office   staff.\t After\t this\torder\t the
\n\t      Respondents  were\t asked\tto  file  statements
\n\t      regarding\t   comparative\t wage\tscales\t  of
\n\t      Supervisors,  in their concerns as well as  in
\n\t      other  concerns.\tThese statements were  filed
\n\t      without prejudice to their contention that the
\n\t      Tribunal had no jurisdiction to fix wage scale
\n\t      in   respect   of\t Supervisory   staff.\t The
\n\t      documents\t  filed\t on  behalf  of\t the   third
\n\t      Respondent  namely  Kenyon Greaves  Pvt  Ltd.,
\n\t      showed that it did not employ any staff in the
\n\t      Supervisory grade.  Thereafter the  references
\n\t      were heard by Shri Paralkar who had  succeeded
\n\t\t\t    Shri Athalye as Judge,
\n\t      377<\/span>
\n\t      Industrial Tribunal.  It was contended  before
\n\t      him  that the Foreman (Supervisors)  were\t not
\n\t      workmen within the definition given in the Act
\n\t      and  that\t no wage scales in  respect  of\t the
\n\t      Supervisors in the Respondent Companies should
\n\t      be  fixed.  The stand taken by  the  Appellant
\n\t      was  that\t it was not open to  the  Respondent
\n\t      Companies\t to raise the question\twhether\t the
\n\t      Supervisors were Workmen within the meaning of
\n\t      the  Act\tas it did not arise  on\t the  remand
\n\t      orders made by this Court.  In the alternative
\n\t      it  was contended that many Supervisory  work-
\n\t      men,  concerned in the dispute were drawing  a
\n\t      total  salary below Rs. 500 ‘and that even  if
\n\t      everyone\t of  them  was\tpromoted  from\t the
\n\t      category\tof  supervisors or for the  sake  of
\n\t      argument\t it  was  held\tthat   Foremen\t and
\n\t      Supervisory staff were not workmen within\t the
\n\t      meaning of the Act, the Workmen had a right to
\n\t      raise  a\tdispute\t regarding  wage  scale\t and
\n\t      dearness\tallowance of the  Supervisory  staff
\n\t      because they have a communist of interest with
\n\t      them.  The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction
\n\t      to  entertain  the depute in respect  of\twage
\n\t      scales   and   dearness\tallowance   of\t the
\n\t      Supervisory   staff.    The   Appellant\talso
\n\t      contended\t on behalf of the Workmen  that\t the
\n\t      only  question  that was\tpending\t before\t the
\n\t      Tribunal was to fix wages for factory  workmen
\n\t      and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction
\n\t      to  decide at that stage as to which  category
\n\t      the workmen belonged.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Tribunal by its Award of the 1st October 1965 held after
\nhearing the parties that Supervisors were not workmen within
\nthe  meaning of the Act and that the claim for\trevision  of
\nwage  scale  and dearness allowance payable to them  was  in
\nthat  view rejected.  Against this Award the  above  Appeals
\nwere  filed by Special Leave granted by this Court  confined
\nonly  to  the  point  whether  the  decision  contained\t  in
\nparagraph 15 and 16 of the Award was correct.
\nAt  the\t outset it was conceded by the\tparties\t that  Civil
\nAppeal\tNo. 1241 of 1966 by the Workmen against\t the  Kenyon
\nGreaves\t Pvt.\tLtd. did not survive because  there  are  no
\npersons\t working in the Supervisory capacities\tand  drawing
\nless  than Rs. 500\/being the two conditions requisite  under
\nSection\t 2  (s) (iv) of -the Act to be a  ‘Workman  the\t non
\nfulfilment  of\twhich  would deprive  the  Tribunal  of\t its
\njurisdiction  to  determine the dispute; and  therefore\t the
\nappeal has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Even  in  respect  of  the other  two  appeals\tthe  learned
\nAdvocate  for  the  Respondent submits\tthat  there  are  no
\nworkman\t working in the Supervisory capacities\tand  drawing
\nless than Rs. 500\/- in the
\n3 78
\nother two Undertakings in respect of which the Appeals\thave
\nbeen  filed and consequently they should also be  dismissed.
\nWe shall, however, deal with this submission later on.
\nBefore\tus five contentions have been urged by\tthe  learned
\nAdvocate for the Appellant:\n<\/p>\n
First whether the case of Supervisors was at all remanded to
\nthe Tribunal for adjudication by the Supreme Court;
\nSecondly  whether it was open to the Respondents to  agitate
\nwhen the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, for the  first
\ntime  to challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal  to\t fix
\nwage scale and dearness allowance of the Supervisors;
\nThirdly whether Supervisors getting less than Rs. 500\/-\t per
\nmonth  on the crucial date namely the date of reference\t can
\nraise  a dispute regarding wages which take them beyond\t Rs.
\n500\/-;\n<\/p>\n
Fourthly  whether  workmen can raise a\tdispute\t about\tnon-
\nworkmen,  as regards terms of employment of non-workmen\t and
\nin what circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
Fifthly\t whether the Tribunal on remand is right in  holding
\nthat in December 1964, none of the Supervisors were  drawing
\nless than Rs. 500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
With  respect to the first two contentions  the\t Appellant’s
\nlearned Advocate submits that in the Special Leave  Petition
\nagainst\t the Award passed by Mr. Sawarkar neither  the\twage
\nscales\t of   Supervisors  nor\tany   question\t about\t the
\njurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal was raised nor\twas  such  a
\ncontention urged before this Court in the Appeals which were
\npartly allowed and remanded by this Court.  Even before\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal, after the remand, when the  Respondent
\nCompanies  in  compliance  with\t its  orders  dated  15-1-54
\nsubmitted  statements giving the names of workmen  including
\nSupervisors  (Foremen) which were covered by  the  reference
\nand  gave their details as called for by the said  Tribunal,
\nthe comments of the Appellants which were submitted on 27-2-
\n64 were that the category of Supervisors was not covered  by
\nthe  order  of\tremand,\t and the  wage\tscale  and  dearness
\nallowance  for\tthat category have been\t confirmed  by\tthis
\nCourt by its judgment dated the 14th November 63.  This\t was
\ncontroverted by the Respondents and by further supplementary
\nwritten\t statement  dated 16-3-64, each\t of  the  Respondent
\nCompanies, it is alleged, tried to cover up and reagents the
\nmatter\twhich  had  already  been  settled  by\tthis   Court
\nregarding uniform service conditions -for the entire Greaves
\nCotton group of Companies on the basis that Greaves Cotton &
\nCo., was the principal Company.\n<\/p>\n
 379<\/span><\/p>\n
Even in these supplementary written statements it is alleged
\nno  question was taken up by the Respondent  Companies\tthat
\nthe Foremen were not workmen within the meaning of the\tAct.
\nThe Appellant had on 24-3-64 submitted an application to the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal stating that the supplementary  written
\nstatements should not be taken on record since the issue  in
\nthe  said supplementary statements regarding  uniformity  in
\nthe  wage scale and dearness allowance was decided  by\tthis
\nCourt.\t It  also urged that the  issue\t regarding  Drivers,
\nCleaners  and  apprentices and Supervisors  were  categories
\nremanded  by the Supreme Court for fixing their\t wage  scale
\nshould be decided as a preliminary issue.\n<\/p>\n
As we have already stated the Tribunal gave its decision  on
\nthe two issues which were raised before it after this  Court
\nhad remanded the matter.  On the other hand it is  contended
\nby the Respondents that it is not open to the Appellants  to
\nraise  this question because the Special Leave\thaving\tbeen
\nconfined only to the point whether the decision contained in
\nparagraphs 15 and 16 of the Award is correct, it is open  to
\nit  to urge that the Supervisors were not workmen.   It\t was
\npointed out that from Paragraph 15 and 16 of the Award it is
\nevident\t that the demand for the revision of the wage  scale
\nand  dearness  allowance  of the Supervisors  even  for\t the
\nlowest\tgrade -on the lowest scale made them non-workmen  as
\ntheir  emoluments  exceed  Rs. 500\/-,  which  decision\talso
\nclearly\t indicates  that  the question of  fixation  of\t the
\nSupervisors  wage scale and dearness allowance was  remanded
\nto  the Tribunal.  It is further stated that this Court\t had
\nin its Judgment dated 14th November 1963 allowed the  Appeal
\nwith respect to the ‘factory workers’ and sent the case back
\ntop  the  Tribunal  for fixing the wage\t structure  for\t the
\n‘factory  workmen’,  that  it is implicit in  the  order  of
\nremand\t that  the  Tribunal  would  have  jurisdiction\t  to
\ndetermine whether any employee of the factory was or was not
\na  workman  within  the\t meaning of the\t Act;  that  if\t the
\nAppellant’s  contention is accepted it would virtually\tmean
\nthat this Court by its Judgment had conferred a jurisdiction
\non  the Tribunal to deal with the case of non-workmen  which
\nthe  Tribunal  under the Act did not possess; and  that\t the
\nquestion  whether  there is community  of  interest  between
\nother  workmen of the Respondent and Supervisors who may  be
\nnon-workmen  is a mixed question of fact and law, which\t has
\nnot been raised before the Tribunal and ought not be allowed
\nto  be raised for the first time before this Court.   It  is
\nalso contended that the question whether some of the workmen
\ncould\traise  a  dispute  regarding  the  grades   of\t the
\nSupervisors as there is a community of interest was not\t the
\nsubject\t matter\t of the decision in para 15 and\t 16  of\t the\n<\/p>\n
-Award,\t  and  that  since  the\t wages\tincluding   dearness
\nallowance of all supervisors at the date of the- Award\twere
\nin excess of
\n380<\/span>
\nRs.  500\/-  the question of considering the  claims  of\t the
\nSupervisors   who  were\t non-workmen  at  the  instance\t  of
\nsupervisors workmen ,does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tnot in our view necessary to go into  these  several
\ncontentions  except to examine the scope of the Judgment  of
\nthis  Court  in\t Civil Appeals Nos. 272-280  of\t 1962  dated
\n14-11-61 by which the remand was made to the Tribunal.\t The
\norder is in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  therefore  dismiss the Appeal so  far  as
\n\t      retrospective  effect and adjustments as\talso
\n\t      fixation of wages and dearness allowance\twith
\n\t      respect to clerical and subordinate staff\t are
\n\t      concerned.   We allow the appeal with  respect
\n\t      to factory workmen and send the cases back  to
\n\t      Tribunal\t for  fixing  the   wage   structure
\n\t      including\t basic wage and\t dearness  allowance
\n\t      and  for granting adjustments in the light  of
\n\t      the observations made by us. . . . “.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Award of the Tribunal which this Court was\t considering
\nin the said appeals dealt with the clerical and\t subordinate
\nstaff  -separately  from  the factory  workmen.\t  It  is  in
\nrespect\t of the portion of the Award relating to Clerks\t and
\nsubordinate  staff  that the appeal was dismissed  and\tthat
\ndealing\t with  the factory workmen  was\t remanded.   Factory
\nworkmen\t had  been  divided  into  six\tcategories  and\t the
\nemployees  of the Respondents had been directed to be  fixed
\nwith separate wages for each category.\tThese six categories
\nwere:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  Unskilled.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Semi-skilled I.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Semi-skilled II.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  Skilled I.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  Skilled II, and\n<\/p>\n
(vi) Skilled III.\n<\/p>\n
Apart  from this the Sawarkar Tribunal in para 58  said,  in
\nthose references it was concerned with the factory  work-men
\nof  only  the  three Respondent\t Companies;  that  different
\nscales of wages prevail for different classes of workmen but
\nwhich  categories  should be placed in which  class  is\t not
\nprescribed.   It  referred to the wage\tscale  of  different
\nclasses of workmen prescribed by Shri Divatia in which apart
\nfrom   the  above  six\tcategories,  three   categories\t  of
\nSupervisors  grade  I,\tII  &  III  were  also\tgiven.\t The
\nTribunal,  however,  while retaining  these  six  categories
\nintroduced a seventh category of higher unskilled, which  as
\nthis  Court observed was not justified because there  cannot
\nbe  degrees of want of skill among unskilled  class.   Apart
\nfrom  this the main attack was on the wages fixed for  these
\nsix categories on the ground that
\n 381<\/span>
\nthe  Tribunal completely overlooked the wages prevalent\t for
\nthese  categories  in  concerns\t which\tit  had\t  considered
\ncomparable.  This.  Court observed “but the way in which the
\nTribunal has dealt with the matter shows that it paid  scant
\nregard to the exemplars. filed before it and did not care to
\nmake the comparison for factory. workmen in the same way  in
\nwhich  it had made comparison for clerical  and\t subordinate
\nstaff.\t In this circumstances wagescales fixed for  factory
\nworkmen\t must  be set aside and the matter remanded  to\t the
\nTribunal  to  fix wage scales for factory  workmen  dividing
\nthem into six categories as at present and then fixing\twage
\nafter  taking  into account wages  prevalent  in  comparable
\nconcerns..  The parties will be at liberty to lead  further’
\nevidence  in  this  connection”.   It  is  clear  from\tthis
\njudgment  that\tthe subordinates and factory  workmen  were,
\ntreated\t separately and we cannot accept the  contention  of
\nthe learned Advocate for he Appellant that in dismissing the
\nappeal\tthis  Court  had rejected  the\tcontentions  of\t the
\nRespondents relating to the Supervisors who according to  it
\nwere  included\tin  the\t category  of  subordinate:   staff.
\nEarlier the Sawarkar Award had after noticing that there are
\n3 sub-divisions in the category of Supervisors laid down the
\nscales\twhich  were higher having regard to  its  desire  to
\nprescribe  the\tsame scales for the three  sub-divisions  as
\nthose  for skilled sub-division 1. It is also apparent\tfrom
\nthe  statements’ filed that the Foremen or Supervisors\twere
\ndivided\t into  3 categories according to their\tpay  scales.
\nThe pay of the Grade I was Rs. 360-20-500, of Grade Rs. 300-
\n15-360\tand  of Grade III-Rs.  250-10-300.   The  Appellants
\nthemselves referred to these Supervisors as Foreman.   Work-
\nmen  under  Section 2 (s) (iv) of the Act means\t any  person
\n(including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
\nskilled\t or unskilled manual supervisory or technical  work,
\n“but does not include any such person who being employed  in
\na supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 500\/-\t per
\nmensem\tor  exercise  either by the  nature  of\t the  duties
\nattached to the office or by reasons of the powers vested in
\nhim, functions mainly of a -managerial nature”.\t This  Court
\nin  remanding  the  case of the factory\t workmen  had  under
\ncontemplation  all  those  workmen who on the  date  of\t the
\nreference  were\t employed  in  a  Supervisory  capacity\t and
\ndrawing\t less than Rs. 500\/- as these were included  in\t six
\ncategories of workmen as classified by the Tribunal.  We  do
\nnot  think there is anything in the remand order to  warrant
\nthe  submission\t that the case of Supervisors  was  included
\namong  the category of subordinate staff or that it was\t not
\nremanded.\n<\/p>\n
After the remand the Tribunal was justified in holding\tthat
\nthis Court had set aside ‘the Award of the previous Tribunal
\nin  respect of all those workers who could not\tbe  properly
\nclassified   as\t office\t staff\tin  which  the\tForemen\t  or
\nSupervisors could not be Am L 1340 Sup CI\/71
\n382<\/span>
\nincluded.   It is also not the case of the  Appellants\tthat
\nworkers\t who  were working in a\t Supervisory  capacity\twere
\nclassified  as\t,office staff.\tIn our view it was  open  to
\nboth the parties to raise all the contentions that were open
\nto them because on remand the wage structure of the  factory
\nworkers\t including basic wage -and their dearness  allowance
\nhad  to be considered afresh.  This conclusion is  supported
\nby  the\t fact  that parties were  given\t liberty  to  adduce
\nfurther evidence in respect thereto.  A reference to para 15
\nand 16 of the Award to which special leave is confined makes
\nit clear that both parties were proceeding on the basis that
\nthe Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with those supervisors
\nwho  under  the Act are workmen.  The only  controversy\t was
\nwhether the Tribunal could fix a wage scale, for them  which
\nwill  ultimately give them a total wage together with  basic
\npay  and  dearness allowance of over Rs. 500\/- p.m.  or\t fix
\nscale  which  has an initial starting salary  with  dearness
\nallowance in excess of Rs. 500\/- p.m. which makes them\tnon-
\nworkmen and thus deprive it of jurisdiction to deal with the
\ndispute.   It  may be of interest to  notice  the  arguments
\naddressed before the Tribunal on behalf of the parties.\t The
\ncontention by the Companies was that though the\t Supervisors
\nmay  be\t in  the  category of workmen at  the  time  of\t the
\nreference the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to  revise
\ntheir  wages  and  grant  to them  at  any  stage,  a  total
\nemoluments exceeding Rs. 500\/as that would convert them into
\nnon-workmen.   On the other band on behalf of the  employees
\nthe  submission was that the Companies had not\traised\tthis
\nquestion in appeal before the Supreme ,Court and in any case
\nit  was ‘not open to them to contend that the ‘Tribunal\t had
\nno  jurisdiction to revise the wage scales of this class  as
\nShri Athalye in’ his order of 14-7-64 had on a consideration\n<\/p>\n
-of  the  Judgment of this Court held that the\tquestion  of
\nrevision  of  the  wages  and  dearness\t allowance  of\t the
\nSupervisors class was to be considered by that Tribunal.  In
\nour view therefore, the ,dispute relating to the Supervisors
\nwage  structure and dearness allowance could,  certainly  on
\nthe  plea of both employers and employees, be determined  by
\nthe  Tribunal.\tThe only question that could be\t raised\t and
\nhas been raised was whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to
\nfix  wage  scales to go beyond Rs. 500\/- and  whether  as  a
\nmatter\tof fact there were any workmen at the time  -of\t the
\ndispute who were working in a supervisory capacity drawing a
\nwage not exceeding Rs. 500\/-.  The Tribunal noted that\tShri
\nPhadke\tfor the Companies did not urge that the persons\t for
\nwhom revision was sought are engaged in managerial functions
\nor at the time the dispute arose were all non-workmen so  is
\nto dis,entitle them to raise the dispute and to exclude\t the
\njurisdiction of the Tribunal altogether.  If it were so, the
\nTribunal observed, the question must be deemed to have\tbeen
\nimpliedly concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court and
\nthe interpretation put
\n 383<\/span>
\nthere  were  persons  employed\tin  a  Supervisory  capacity
\ndrawing\t a wage not exceeding Rs. 500\/- and who\t as  workmen
\nwithin\tthe  amended  definition  of  that  expression\twere
\ninterested  in demanding scales which take them\t beyond\t Rs.
\n500\/-.\t But it was contended by the Companies that even  if
\nthe employees are entitled to raise the demand the  Tribunal
\nwould have no jurisdiction to grant it in a manner so as  to
\nconvert them into non-workmen.\n<\/p>\n
On  these contentions the Tribunal held that  although\t‘the
\nSupervisors  drawing a wage not exceeding Rs. 500\/-  may  be
\nentitled to raise the demand and ask for a scale which would
\ntake  them beyond Rs. 500\/- they would not be  justified  in
\nmaking\ta claim for a scale which at the  very\tcommencement
\nwould  provide them with a wage in excess of Rs.  500\/-.   A
\nclaim  for  Rs.\t 300\/as basic wage for\tthe  last  grade  of
\nSupervisors  together  with a claim for\t dearness  allowance
\nwould  come  to an amount in excess of Rs.  500\/-  and\tthus
\nconvert\t the Supervisors into non-workmen even at  the\tvery
\ncommencement.\tSuch  a claim, the  Tribunal  thought  would
\nobviously  not\tbe  tenable  because  although\tit  may\t  be
\npermissible  on the grounds of social justice to revise\t the
\nwage  scale which may be justified by the  circumstances  in
\nthe case it will not be permissible for the Tirbunal to\t fix
\nit so as to convert a workman into a non-workman.
\nThis  leads  us to the consideration of the  third  and\t the
\nfourth point urged before us namely whether the\t Supervisors
\ngetting\t less than Rs. 500\/- per month on the  crucial\tdate
\nwhich  is  the date of reference can raise the\tdispute\t for
\nwages  taking them beyond Rs. 500\/- and whether workmen\t can
\nraise a dispute about non-workmen.  In our view the Tribunal
\nhas  jurisdiction  to  consider\t revision  of  wage   scale,
\ndearness allowance and other emoluments so long as there  is
\na  category  of workmen who are employed  in  a\t supervisory
\ncapacity  and drawing less than Rs. 500\/-.  Even  where\t the
\nworkman\t in a supervisory capacity ask for a  pay  structure
\nwhich  takes  them beyoned Rs. 500 that by itself  does\t not
\npreclude  its jurisdiction to determine what is\t the  proper
\nwage structure, for that class or category of workmen.\t The
\nview  of  the Tribunal was that though it  is  possible\t for
\nSupervisors who are workmen on the date of the reference  to
\ndemand\ta  wage\t scale beyond Rs. 500\/- they  would  not  be
\njustified  in making a claim for a scale which at  the\tvery
\ncommencement  would give them a wage in excess of Rs.  500\/-
\nso  as to take them out of the category of workmen and\tmake
\nthem  non-workmen.  The learned Advocate for  the  Appellant
\nsubmits\t that  merely  because\ta  claim  is  made  by\t the
\nSupervisors for an initial wage in excess of Rs. 500\/it does
\nnot imply that it will be granted or merely for that  reason
\ndeprive\t the Tribunal of its -jurisdiction to pass an  Award
\nin  respect  of\t a wage which it considers to  be  fair\t and
\nproper.\t There
\n384<\/span>
\nis  no gain-saying the fact that once a Tribunal  is  vested
\nwith  the,  jurisdiction to entertain the dispute  which  is
\nvalidly\t .  referred,  it does not cease  to  continue\tthat
\njurisdiction  merely because the claim made goes beyond\t the
\nwage which takes workmen out of that category and make\tthem
\nnon-workmen.  What has to be seen is whether on the date  of
\nthe  reference\tthere  was any dispute\tin  respect  of\t the
\nworkmen\t which\tcould  be  referred under  the\tAct  to\t the
\nTribunal.   In\tany case can workmen raise a  dispute  about
\nnon-workmen  even  if  many or all of them  have  since\t the
\nreference become non- working ? In All India Reserve Bank of
\nIndia  Employees  Association v. Reserve Bank  of  India,<\/a>(1)
\nthis Court had occasion to consider these aspects.  In\tthat
\ncase  Class  11 and Class III staff of the Reserve  Bank  of
\nIndia  through their Association and Class IV staff  through
\ntheir Union raised an industrial dispute which was  referred
\n‘by  the  Central Govt. to the Tribunal.  One of  the  items
\nreferred  concerned  scales of pay,  allowances\t and  sundry
\nmatters\t connected  with the conditions of  service  of\t the
\nthree  classes, the most important ones being the demand  of
\nClass  11 staff claiming a scale commencing with Rs.  500\/-.
\nThe  Tribunal  held  that the Class II\tstaff  worked  in  a
\nSupervisory capacity and this demand for a minimum salary of
\nRs. 500\/-, if conceded, would take the said staff out of the
\ncategory  of ‘workman’ as defined in Sec. 2(s) of  the\tAct.
\nSuch  an  Award, and any Award, carrying  wages\t beyond\t Rs.
\n500\/- at any stage, was according to the Tribunal beyond its
\njurisdiction to make.  It also held that other workmen could
\nnot  raise  a dispute which would involve  consideration  of
\nmatters in relation to non-workmen and that it would be even
\nbeyond the jurisdiction of the Central Govt. to refer such a
\ndispute under the Act.\tThe Tribunal therefore made no Award
\nin regard to the Supervisory staff in Class IT.
\nThis  Court  held  that the Tribunal was  not  justified  in
\nholding\t that  if at a future time an incumbent\t would\tdraw
\nwags  in the time scale in excess of Rs. 500\/-,\t the  matter
\nmust  be taken to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of\t the
\nCentral Govt. to make a reference in respect of him and\t the
\nTribunal  to  be ousted of the jurisdiction  to\t decide\t the
\ndispute, if referred Supervisory staff drawing less than Rs.
\n5001  per month cannot be debarred from claiming  that\tthey
\nshould\tdraw more than Rs. 500\/presently or at\tsome  future
\nstage  in their service.  They can only be deprived  of\t the
\nbenefits, if they are non-workmen at the time they seek\t the
\nprotection  of the Act.\t It was further held that in Sec.  2\n<\/p>\n
(k)  of\t the  Act the word person has not  been\t limited  to
\n‘workmen’ and must therefore receive a more general
\n(1)  [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25.\n<\/p>\n
 3 8 5
\nmeaning.   But it does not mean any person unconnected\twith
\nthe disputants in relation to whom the dispute is not of the
\nkind  described.   It  could not  have\tbeen  intended\tthat
\nalthough  the  dispute does not concern them in\t the  least,
\nworkmen\t are  entitled\tto fight it out on  behalf  of\tnon-
\nworkmen.   But if the dispute is regarding employment,\tnon-
\nemployment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour  of
\nnon-workmen   in  which\t workmen  are\tthemselves   vitally
\ninterested  the workmen may be able to raise  an  industrial
\ndispute.   Workmen  can for example raise a dispute  that  a
\nclass  of employees not within the definition  of  ‘workmen’
\nshould be recruited by promotion from workmen.\tWhen they do
\nso the workmen raise a dispute about the terms of their\t own
\nemployment  though incidentally the terms of  employment  of
\nthose  who are not workmen is involved.\t But workmen  cannot
\ntake up a dispute in respect of a class of employees who are
\nnot  workmen and in whose terms of employment those  workmen
\nhave no direct interest of their own.  What direct  interest
\nsuffices  is  a question of fact but it must be a  real\t and
\npositive interest.and not fanciful or remote.  Hidayatullah,
\nJ, as he then was, speaking for this Court concluded at page
\n45 thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It   follows  therefore\tthat  the   National
\n\t      Tribunal was in error in considering the claim
\n\t      of  class 2 employees whether at the  instance
\n\t      of  members  drawing less than  Rs.  500\/-  as
\n\t      wages  or at the instance of those lower\tdown
\n\t      in  the  scale of\t employment.   The  National
\n\t      Tribunal\twas also in error in  thinking\tthat
\n\t      scales of wages in excess of Rs. 500 per month
\n\t      at any stage were not within the\tjurisdiction
\n\t      of the Tribunal or that Govt. could not make a
\n\t      reference\t in  such a contingency.   We  would
\n\t      have  been  required to  consider\t the  scales
\n\t      applicable  to those in Class 11 but  for\t the
\n\t      fact  that the Reserve Bank has  fixed  scales
\n\t      which are admitted to be quite generous”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate  v.  Management
\nDimakuchi  Tea\tEstate,<\/a> (q) was referred to  with  approval.
\nThere  the  majority S. R. Dass, C.J, S. K. Das, J.  (A.  K.
\nSarkar J, dissenting) had held that the workmen cannot raise
\na dispute in respect of a non-workman one Dr. K. P. Banerjee
\nwhose  services were terminated by the management by  paying
\nhim  one month salary in lieu of notice.  It  was  contended
\nthat Dr. Banerjee being not a workman his case is not one of
\nan industrial dispute under the Act and is therefore  beyond
\nthe jurisdiction of the Tribunal to give any relief to\thim.
\nThe  matter  had  been referred to a  Board  known  as\t‘the
\nTripartite
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 353.\n<\/p>\n
386<\/span><\/p>\n
Appellate  Board which recommended that Dr. Banerjee  should
\nbe  reinstated\tfrom the date of his discharge.\t  Later\t the
\nGovt.  of Assam referred the dispute for adjudication  to  a
\nTribunal constituted under Sec. 6 of the Act.  The  Tribunal
\nheld that it had no jurisdiction to give any relief to\thim.
\nThe  Appeal  to\t the Labour  Appellate\tTribunal  of  India,
\nCalcutta was also dismissed.  Special Leave was granted, but
\nwas limited to the question whether the dispute in  relation
\nto  a person who is not a workman falls within the scope  of
\nan  industrial\tdispute\t under Sec. 2(k) of  the  Act.\t The
\nmajority  held\tthat where the workmen raise  a\t dispute  as
\nagainst their employer the
\n\t      “person  regarding whom the dispute is  raised
\n\t      must   be\t one  in  whose\t  employment,\tnon-\n<\/p>\n
\t      employment, terms of employment or  conditions
\n\t      of labour (as the case may be) the parties  to
\n\t      the  dispute  have  a  direct  or\t substantial
\n\t      interest…..   Where  the  workmen  raise   a
\n\t      dispute as against their employer the personregardin
\ng      whose
\n\t      employment, non-employment, terms ofemployment
\n\t      or conditions of labour the dispute israisedneed
\n\t      not be, strictly speaking, a ‘workman’  within
\n\t      the  meaning  of the Act, but must be  one  in
\n\t      whose  employment,  non-employment,  terms  of
\n\t      employment or conditions of labour the workmen
\n\t      as  a  class  have  a  direct  or\t substantial
\n\t      interest”.\n<\/p>\n
Applying   these  principles  the  majority  came   to\t the
\nconclusion that Dr. Banerjee who belonged to the Medical  or
\nTechnical  staff  was not a workman and the  Appellants\t had
\nneither direct nor substantial interest in his employment or
\nnon-employment and even assuming that he was a member of the
\nsame  trade  Union it cannot be said on the test  laid\tdown
\nthat the dispute regarding his termination of service was an
\nindustrial  dispute within the meaning of Sec. 2(k)  of\t the
\nAct.   S.  K.  Das, J, who delivered  the  judgment  of\t the
\nmajority  in  the  above case also spoke for  the  Court  in
\nWorkmen\t v. Dahingeapara Tea Estate.(1) In the\tDahingeapara
\ncase  on the sale of the Tea Estate as a going\tconcern\t the
\npurchaser continued to employ the labour and some members of
\nthe  staff  of\tthe vendor.  The question  was\twhether\t the
\ndispute\t raised by such workmen regarding the employment  of
\nthe  rest of the members of the old staff was an  industrial
\ndispute.   It  was  held that it  was.\t The  reference\t was
\nagainst\t the  outgoing management as I well as\tagainst\t the
\nincoming  management of the Tea Estate.\t It may\t be  noticed
\nthat under the agreement of sale an option was given to\t the
\npurchaser to continue in employment, the members of
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1026.\n<\/p>\n
 387<\/span><\/p>\n
the staff. it also made the vendor liable for the claims  by
\nthe  members of the staff not so retained in service by\t the
\npurchaser.   In\t these\tcircumstances it was  held  that  as
\nbetween\t the  vendor and the discharged workmen\t the  latter
\ncame  within  the  definition of the workmen  as  they\twere
\ndischarged during the pendency of conciliation\tproceedings.
\nThis  fact  however,  did  not\tmake  them  workmen  of\t the
\npurchaser.  Even then they were persons in whose  employment
\nor non-employment the actual workmen of the Dahingeapara Tea
\nEstate\twere directly interested.  The ratio of the  Western
\nIndia\tAutomobile  Association\t v.   Industrial   Tribunal,
\nBombay,(1)  as,\t also of the later decision  in\t Workmen  of
\nDimakunchi  Tea\t Estate\t v.  Management<\/a>\t (  2  )  was\tmade
\napplicable  and\t the dispute was held to be clearly  an\t in-
\ndustrial dispute within the meaning of the Act.\t A reference
\nis  made  to the Standard Vacuum Refining Company  of  India
\nLtd., v. Its workmen & Anr., (3) where the question relating
\nto  the dispute arising out of the demand for the  abolition
\nof the contract system of employing labour for cleaning\t and
\nmaintenance work at the refinery including the premises\t and
\nplant belonging to it and for absorbing the workmen employed
\nthrough\t the  contractors into the regular  service  of\t the
\nCompany\t was  -considered.   The  Company  objected  to\t the
\nreference  on  the ground that : ( 1 )\tit  was\t incompetent
\ninasmuch  as  there was no dispute between it and  the\tRes-
\npondents,  and it was not open to them ,to raise  a  dispute
\nwith  respect to the workmen of some other  employer  namely
\nthe  contractor; and (2) in any case it was for the  Company
\nto  decide  what  was the best method  of  carrying  on\t its
\nbusiness and the Tribunal could not interfere with  function
\nof the management.  The Tribunal held that the reference was
\ncompetent  and that the claim was justified.  Following\t the
\nDimakuchi  case\t this  Court held that the  dispute  in\t the
\npresent\t case  was  an industrial dispute  because  (1)\t the
\nRespondents had a community of interests with the workmen of
\nthe contractor; (2) they had also a substantial interest  in
\nthe  subject  matter of the dispute in the  sense  that\t the
\nclass\tto   which  they  belonged,  namely   workmen,\t was
\nsubstantially  affected thereby, and (3) the  Company  could
\ngive  relief in the matter.  The conclusion of the  Tribunal
\nthat the contract system should be abolished was held to  be
\njust  in  the circumstances of the case and  should  not  be
\ninterfered with.\n<\/p>\n
It  would therefore appear that the consistent view of\tthis
\nCourt  is  that non-workmen as well as Workmen can  raise  a
\ndispute\t in respect of matters affecting  their\t employment,
\nconditions  of service etc., where they have a community  of
\ninterests, provided they are direct and are not remote.\t  As
\nstated in the
\n(1) [1949] L.L.J. 245.(3) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 466. (2) A.  I.
\nR. [1958] S.C. 353.\n<\/p>\n
388<\/span><\/p>\n
Reserve Bank of India’s case(1) “But workmen cannot take  up
\na  dispute  in respect of a class of employees who  are\t not
\nworkmen and in whose terms of employment, those workmen have
\nno  direct interest of their own”.  At any rate as  long  as
\nthere  are persons in the category of workmen in respect  of
\nwhom a dispute has been referred it cannot be said that\t the
\nTribunal  has no jurisdiction notwithstanding the fact\tthat
\nsome  or  many\tof them may become  non-workmen\t during\t the
\npendency  of  the  dispute.   In  these\t circumstances\t the
\nTribunal  in our view was wrong in holding that the  dispute
\nregarding Supervisors was not maintainable -merely because a
\ndemand\twas made for a higher wage scale, which\t would\ttake
\nthem  out  of  the category of workmen.\t  The  Tribunal\t has
\njurisdiction to decide these matters because on the  crucial
\ndate the supervisors were workmen and merely because -of the
\ndemand\tthe  Tribunal  does not\t lose  its  jurisdiction  to
\nprescribe  the pay scales and the dearness allowance  either
\nby  reason :of the fact that the maximum will go beyond\t Rs.
\n500\/-  or  that even the initial pay demanded will  be\tmore
\nthan  Rs. 500\/-.  Provided that at the time of\tadjudication
\nthere are some at least in the category who are workmen.
\nBut the question is if there are none at all and all of them
\nhave  become, non-workmen either during the pendency  or  at
\nthe  time  of adjudication, does the dispute  survive  ?  In
\nother  words  -does  the dispute remain\t a  dispute  between
\nemployers and workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of
\nthe Act?  These -questions arise out of the fifth contention
\nurged before us by the learned Advocate for the\t Respondents
\nnamely whether in fact there are now any supervisors working
\nin any of -the Companies because as the learned Advocate for
\nthe Respondent contends, if, they are none and they are\t all
\nnon-workmen, the dispute lapses and at any rate the fixation
\nof  a  wage  scale  for non-existing  workmen  would  be  an
\nexercise   in  futility.   The\tlearned\t Advocate  for\t the
\nAppellant contests this proposition on the ground that\teven
\nif there are no supervisor workmen working in the Companies,
\nthe matter should be considered by the Tribunal inasmuch  as
\nany  pay  scale prescribed by it  would\t have  retrospective
\noperation as from the 1st of April 59 which what this  Court
\nhad  directed while remanding the case back to the  Tribunal
\nin  Civil Appeals Nos. 272-280 of 1962.\t For this reason  it
\nis  said that those workmen who have since gone out  of\t the
\ncategory  of workmen ,or have retired or resigned  would  be
\nentitled  to  the  benefit of the pay  structure  and  could
\nrecover\t arrears..  In the Reserve Bank\t case(“)  a  similar
\nsituation  had\tto  be considered.   The  reference  to\t the
\nNational  Tribunal  was in 1960 and by the time\t the  matter
\ncame to be decided all of them were getting wages in
\n(1)[1966] 1 S.C. 25.\n<\/p>\n
 3 8 9
\nexcess of Rs. 500\/- per month and were non-workmen.  It\t was
\nheld at page 46
\n\t      “In  view\t of the fact that all  of  them\t now
\n\t      receive at the start ‘wages’ in excess of\t Rs.
\n\t      500\/- per month, there is really no issue left
\n\t      concerning them,, once we have held that\tthey
\n\t      are working – in a supervisory capacity.”\n<\/p>\n
In the result the Appeal was dismissed with the\t observation
\nthat it would have partly succeeded but for the creation  of
\nnew  scales of pay for Class II employees and acceptance  of
\nsome  of  the  minor  points by the  Reserve  Bank.   It  is
\nhowever, contended by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
\nthat in that case Mr. Chari had acknowledged at page 37 that
\nthe scales of pay which were awarded were as generous as the
\npresent\t circumstances\tof our country permit.\tIn  view  of
\nthis admission it is said that this Court made no order\t and
\ntherefore  that\t should not be taken into  consideration  in
\ndeciding  whether  the\tmatter should  be  remended  to\t the
\nTribunal  for  fixing pay scales of  the  Supervisors.\t The
\nlearned Advocate however ignored the observation immediately
\npreceding the admission made by Mr. Chari.  It was  observed
\nat page 37 “but more than this the minimum total  emoluments
\nas  envisaged  by  the\tdefinition of  wages,  even  at\t the
\ncommencement of service of each and every member of Class II
\nstaff  on January 1, 1962 now exceed Rs. 500\/- p.m. This  of
\ncourse\twas done with a view to withdrawing the whole  class
\nfrom the ambit of the reference, because it is supposed,  no
\nmember\tof the class can now come within the  definition  of
\n‘workman’.  We shall, of course, decide the question whether
\nthe  resolution has that effect.  If it does,  it  certainly
\nrelieves  us  of the task of considering scales of  pay\t for
\nthese employees for no remit is now possible as no  National
\nTribunal  is  sitting.\t The scales have  been\taccepted  as
\ngenerous,  the dispute regarding scales of pay for Class  II
\nemployees  under the reference, really ceases to be  a\tlive
\nissue”.\t The decision, therefore, must be understood in\t the
\nlight  of  the\tabove observations.   The  reason  for\tthis
\nconclusion  is that if there are no workmen of the  category
\nwith  respect  to  whom\t a dispute  has\t been  referred\t the
\nTribunal cannot be called upon to prescribe a wage structure
\nfor non-existing workmen, nor does it have the\tjurisdiction
\nto do so.  The dispute in this sense must be deemed to\thave
\nlapsed.\t  The  question therefore to be determined  in\tthis
\ncase  is whether as a matter of fact there are\tany  workmen
\nnow  working in a Supervisory capacity who are drawing\tmore
\nthan Rs. 500\/-, so that it would be futile for us to  direct
\nthe Tribunal to fix scales of Day and dearness allowance  in
\nrespect of a category of employees who are no longer workmen
\nand with respect
\n3 90
\nto whom the reference can be said to have been withdrawn  as
\nin the case of the Reserve Bank of India.\n<\/p>\n
In  ‘Support  of this contention that there are in  fact  no
\nsupervisors at present who can be termed workmen in the\t two
\nCompanies the learned Advocate for the Respondents asked for
\npermission  to\tfile an affidavit which permission  we\tgave
\nwith   liberty\t to  the  Appellant  to\t file\ta   counter.
\nAccordingly  the  Appellant,  has filed a  counter  and\t the
\nRespondents have submitted their rejoinders.  In paragraph 3
\nof  the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents  it  is
\nstated\tthat  the Second Respondent Company  namely  Greaves
\nCotton\t&  Crompton Parkinson Pvt.  Ltd.  (Crompton  Greaves
\nLtd).,\temployed  15 employees in the Supervisory  cadre  as
\nshown  in the statement filed in pursuance of the  Tribunals
\norder dated 15-1-64 but as on the date of the affidavit only
\nfour  persons  remained in the Supervisory cadre  Grade\t 11.
\nThere are no person employed in other Supervisory grade.  It
\nwas.also pointed out that all these 4 employees were in\t the
\nSupervisory  Grade II and drawing a total salary as on\tJuly
\n1971  exceeding Rs. 500\/- a month.  In the annexure  to\t the
\naffidavit   the\t reason\t given\twas  that  eachone  of\t the
\nSupervisors at the time when the statement was filedin
\nJanuary 1964 had ceased to be a Super- visor.  Out of the15
\npersons,  whose names were given, four resigned. 2  retired,
\none died two retrenched and two were, promoted as  Technical
\nAssistants.  The remaining four of them are all drawing\t per
\nmonth a salary of Rs. 545\/50 as Grade II Supervisors.  These
\nare S\/Shri Deshmukh, Gurbax Singh Kaslay and Pastakia.
\nIn so far as Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., is concerned, it was
\nurged  that even on 1-1-64 as per Ex.  RC. 2 the only  three
\nSupervisors  who had been working with them were  drawing  a
\nsalary\tin excess of Rs. 500\/- which will take them  out  of
\nthe  category  of  workmen.  These are G.  G.  Naik,  S.  S.
\nKulkarni, M. D. Gupte, who were on that date drawing a total
\nsalary\t of   Rs.  505\/-;  Rs.\t581\/73,\t  and\tRs.   545\/58
\nrespectively.\tThis statement was again reiterated  in\t the
\nrejoinder,  where it was stated that these were promoted  in
\n1965,  the latter two as Assistant Engineers and the  former
\nas Superintendent Cone & tube plant.\n<\/p>\n
The  counter-affidavit\tby  the Appellant sworn\t to  by\t the
\nGeneral\t Secretary of the Greaves Cotton & allied  Companies
\nUnion\tapart  from  containing\t averments  which  are\t not
\ngermanium  to  the  matter in issue does  not  traverse\t the
\nspecific  statement  in respect of each one  of\t the  Super-
\nvisors\tnor  does  it  say  that  any  of  them\t were  still
\nsupervisors drawing a salary of less than Rs. 500\/-.  It was
\nbecause\t of  the  submission  of  the  learned\tAdvocate  on
\ninstructions that there are still some Supervisors
\n 3 91
\nemployed  by  the  Respondents who are\tworkmen\t within\t the
\nmeaning of Sec. 2 (s) of the Act, we had asked him to file a
\ncounter\t giving the name of the person or, persons  who\t are
\nstill working in that -capacity and their total\t emoluments;
\nbut  we\t find from the counter except for a bare  denial  no
\nspecific  averment as aforesaid has been made nor  does\t the
\ncounter states categorically who are the persons who are now
\nworking\t as  Supervisors and drawing less  than\t Rs.  500\/-.
\nWith the counter were annexed two statements Annexure ‘A’  &
\nAnnexure  ‘B’,\tthe former showing  supervisors\t working  in
\nGreaves Cotton & Crompton Parkinson Ltd., as on 30-5-59 with
\nwage  drawn  by\t -them\ton that\t date,\tthe  latter  is\t the
\nstatement  showing list of Supervisors working in  the\tsaid
\nCompany as on 1st October ’65 and the wage drawn by them for
\nthe  month of September, 1965.\tMerely to state\t that  there
\nwere  Supervisors  on 8-4-59 the day on which the  Govt.  of
\nMaharashtra made the reference or in 1964 or 1965 or to\t say
\nthat  even today there are Supervisors working in that\tCom-
\npany or that the Industrial Tribunal went into the  question
\nand gave its finding against the Company holding that  there
\nwere Departmental Foremen in the Factories of Greaves Cotton
\n& Co. Ltd., does not advance the case any further than\twhat
\nit  was\t when  we  permitted the  Respondents  to  file\t the
\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n
We  cannot therefore accept a mere denial in respect of\t the
\ncrucial point whether today there are Supervisors working in
\nthe  Respondent\t Companies  who are drawing  -a\t basic\twage
\ntogether with dearness allowance of less than Rs. 5001\/-  as
\nstated\tin  the\t affidavit  and\t again\treiterated  in\t the
\nrejoinder.  The entire argument of the Respondents that\t any
\ndecision  given by this Court would be otiose is based\tupon
\nthe existence or non-existence of the said fact.  In view of
\nthe omission to state specifically in the counter the  names
\nof  the\t persons  who  as  of  now  are\t still\tworking\t  as
\nSupervisors  and drawing less than Rs. 500\/- we\t cannot\t but
\nhold  that the averments made by the Respondents that  there
\nare no employees who are working at present in a supervisory
\ncapacity  and  who  can be said to  be\tworkmen,  have\tbeen
\nsubstantiated.\t If  so,  for the reasons  given  the  issue
\nlapses,\t as such these appeals will be dismissed but in\t the
\ncircumstances without costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\ndismissed\n3 92\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 319, 1972 SCR (1) 373 Author: P J Reddy Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan PETITIONER: THE WORKMEN Vs. RESPONDENT: GREAVES COTTON & CO. LTD. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/08\/1971 BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-25T15:11:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T15:11:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971\"},\"wordCount\":7846,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971\",\"name\":\"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T15:11:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-25T15:11:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971","datePublished":"1971-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T15:11:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971"},"wordCount":7846,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971","name":"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T15:11:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-vs-greaves-cotton-co-ltd-ors-on-24-august-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Workmen vs Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126715","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126715\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}