{"id":15932,"date":"1996-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996"},"modified":"2018-10-10T20:54:25","modified_gmt":"2018-10-10T15:24:25","slug":"h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996","title":{"rendered":"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian … vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees’ … on 29 October, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian … vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees’ … on 29 October, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: Kirpal<\/div>\n
Bench: J.S. Verma, B.N. Kirpal<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nH.M.T. LIMITEDWORMEN OF INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nH.M.T. HEAD OFFICE EMPLOYEES' ASSO. AND ORS.THE MANAGEMENT O\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/10\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nJ.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t [With C.A. Nos. 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726\/90]
\n&
\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13380 OF 1996
\n\t[Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5345 of 1990]
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nKIRPAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The award\tof the\tNational Industrial Tribunal, Bombay
\n(hereinafter referred  to as’ the Tribunal’) adjudicating on
\nthe demands  of the  unions of\tfive Bangalore\tbased public
\nsector undertakings  for parity\t in minimum  wage  with\t the
\nminimum wage  payable to  the employees\t of  another  public
\nsector undertaking  namely; Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  ‘BHEL’) is  challenged by\t the
\nmanagements as well as the workmen in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The minimum  wage of  the lowest cagetory of workmen of
\nfive Bangalore\tbased  public  sector  undertakings  namely;
\nBharat\tElectronics  Limited  (hereinafter  referred  to  as
\n‘B.E.L.’), Bharat Earth Movers Limited (hereinafter referred
\nto as  ‘B.E.M.L.’), Indian    Telephone\t Industries  Limited
\n(hereinafter  referred\t to   as   ‘I.T.I.   ‘),   Hindustan
\nAeronautics Limited  (hereinafter referred  to as  ‘H.A.L.’)
\nand Hindustan  Machine Tools   Limited (hereinafter referred
\nto as  ‘H.M.T.’) was  the same\tin all\tthese public  sector
\nundertakings. By  settlements entered  into on various dates
\nin 1974\t between the  managements and  the workmen  of these
\nfive undertakings  except I.T.I.,  the minimum\twage of\t the
\nlowest category of workmen was fixed at Rs. 300\/- consisting
\nof basic  pay of Rs. 200\/- + Dearness Allowance of Rs. 100\/-
\nwhich was  linked  with\t Local\tConsumer  Price\t Index.\t The
\nminimum wage  in I.T.I.\t was also  fixed at  Rs.  300\/-.  As
\ndearness allowance  was linked with All India Consumer Price
\nIndex, on the basis of the Index prevailing as on 1,12.1973,
\nthe Dearness  Allowance payable\t on the\t basic wage  of\t Rs.
\n200\/- came  to\tRs.  91\/-  and,\t hence\tin  order  to  bring
\nuniformity in  the minimum wage, the employees of the I.T.I.
\nwere paid  City Compensatory Allowance (hereinafter referred
\nto as  ‘C.C.A.’) of Rs. 9\/- at 4 1\/2 % of the basic pay. The
\nsettlements in\tthese five  undertakings were to be in force
\ntill 31.12.1976.\n<\/p>\n
     In BHEL,  with whom  parity was  being claimed  by\t the
\nworkmen\t of   these  five  industries,\tan  agreement  dated
\n17\/18.9.73 had\tbeen entered  into whereby  the minimum wage
\nwas fixed  at Rs.  258.70\/- comprising\tof basic  pay of Rs,
\n200\/- and  Dearness Allowance  of Rs.  58\/- at the All India
\nConsumer Price\tIndex of  200 points  for industrial workers
\nwith 1960  base. A  revision was effected by agreement dated
\n17\/18.1.1974 and the minimum wage of the workers of BHEL was
\nfixed  at  Rs.\t300\/-.\tThis  minimum  wage,  and  the\twage
\nstructure constructed  on this\tbasis, came  into force with
\neffect from  1.9.1973 and was to be in force for a period of
\nfour years. This agreement expired at the end of August 1977
\nand negotiations  for the  review and  revision of  the same
\nw.e.f. 1.9.1977\t were commenced\t between the  management and
\nthe workers  in March,\t1978. A\t final agreement between the
\nmanagement and\tthe workers  was reached  on 8\/9-1-1980.  By
\nthis agreement,\t the wages  as on  1.1-1978 for an unskilled
\nemployee in  BHEL at  the lowest level as fixed at Rs. 500\/-
\nper month  at All  India Consumer Price Index of 327 points.
\nThis agreement\twas to\tbe effective  from 1.1.1978  and was
\nimplemented in April, 1980 .\n<\/p>\n
     The 1974 settlements between the managements of B.E.L.,
\nI.T.I., H.A.L., and B.E.M.L. expired on 31.12.1976 and hence
\nthe workmen  unions submitted  charters of  demands in early
\npart of 1977. Conciliation proceedings were held between the
\nmanagements of\tfive public  sector undertakings  and  their
\nworkmen and amicable settlements were arrived at between the
\nparties on 25.5.1978. Term number 1 of these settlements was
\nuniform and is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “The Union\t agrees\t to  accept  the
\n     offer of the management with regard
\n     to pay  scales, quantum of Dearness
\n     Allowance and  Fitment benefits and
\n     method of\tfixation of  pay in  the
\n     revised pay  scales as  detailed in
\n     Annexure-1.   This,    however   is
\n     without prejudice\tto  the\t Union’s
\n     right to  take  up\t the  issues  of
\n     revision of  minimum wages\t and the
\n     enhancement   of\t the   rate   of
\n     neutralisation\tof\tDearness
\n     Allowance beyond Rs. 1.30 per point
\n     with the Government of India and if
\n     the Government  of India  agrees to
\n     the  improvement\tin  the\t minimum
\n     wages  or\tthe  Dearness  Allowance
\n     neutralisation rate  the management
\n     agrees    to     make     necessary
\n     modification to  the minimum  wages
\n     and       Dearness\t       Allowance
\n     neutralisation\t  rata\t     and
\n     consequential  adjustment\t in  the
\n     wage structure in consultation with
\n     the Unions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The said settlements dated 25.5.1978 did not settle all
\nthe  demands   of  the\t workmen.  Conciliation\t proceedings
\ncontinued which, therefore, resulted in different memorandum
\nof settlements\twhich were entered into in case of H.A.L. on
\n30.8.1978, in  B.E.M.L. on 31.8.1978, in I.T.I. on 1.9.1978,
\nin H.M.T. on 2.9.1978 and in B.E.L. on 3.9.1978.\n<\/p>\n
     These settlements\tcontained different, though somewhat
\nsimilar, terms\twith regard  to revision  of wages.   In the
\nsettlement of  B.E.L.,\tterm  Nos.  1.0\t and  1.1.  were  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     “1.0 This\tagreement   is\t without
\n     prejudice to  the Union’s\tright to
\n     take up  the issues  of revision of
\n     minimum wages  and the  enhancement
\n     of the  rate of  neutralisation  of
\n     Dearness Allowance\t at Rs. 1.30 per
\n     point rise\/fall  in the  local CPI,
\n     with  the\tGovernment  and\t if  the
\n     Government\t of   India  agrees   to
\n     improve the  minimum  wage\t or  the
\n     neutralisation rate beyond Rs. 1.30
\n     per point, the Management agrees to
\n     make necessary modifications to the
\n     minimum wage,  D.A.  neutralisation
\n     rate and  consequential adjustments
\n     in\t  the\t wage\t structure    in
\n     consultation with the Unions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1.1  If\tthe    minimum\t  wages,
\n     comprising\t of   pay  and\tDearness
\n     Allowance,\t or   if  the\trate  of
\n     neutralisation\tof\tDearness
\n     Allowance is  altered to  a  higher
\n     rate  than\t  agreed  to   in   this
\n     settlement in any other Engineering
\n     Central Public  Sector  Undertaking
\n     such  as  BHEL,  H.M.T.  etc.,  the
\n     Management agrees to make necessary
\n     modifications   in\t  the\trelevant
\n     clauses\t  and\t   consequential
\n     adjustments, in  consultation  with
\n     the Unions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Similar terms  were incorporated  in the settlements in
\nthe cases of B.E.M.L. and H.A.L.. In the cases of I.T.I. and
\nH.M.T., however,  there was no term similar to 1.0 or 1.1 of
\nthe B.E.L. settlement but the above- mentioned term 1 of the
\nsettlement dated  25.5.78 was  reiterated in the preamble of
\ntheir settlements.  At the  time when these settlements took
\nplace in  1978, negotiations  were taking  place between the
\nmanagements and\t the workers  of BHEL which had not resulted
\nin a  final settlement.\t It is\tfor this  reason that in the
\naforesaid clause  1.1 reference\t was made  to the settlement
\nwhich might  take  place  between  the\tmanagement  and\t the
\nworkers\t of   BHEL  and\t  which\t could\t result\t in  certain
\nmodifications being  made in  the relevant  clauses  of\t the
\nsettlement.\n<\/p>\n
     After  the\t  settlement  was  arrived  at\tbetween\t the
\nmanagement and\tthe workers  of BHEL  on 8\/9.1.80  which had
\nresulted in  the revision  of wage at the lowest level of an
\nunskilled employee  to Rs.  500\/- P.M.\tw.e.f.\t1.9.78,\t the
\nunions representing  the workmen in the five Bangalore based
\npublic sector undertakins raised the question of revision of
\nminimum wage  in these industries as per the minimum wage as
\nsettled in  BHEL. A joint action forum (hereinafter referred
\nto  as\t ‘JAF’)\t of   the  unions   of\tfive  public  sector
\nundertakings at Bangalore and Kolar Gold Fields (which was a
\nunit of\t BHEL) was formed. On 12.9.1980, this JAF formulated
\na common proposal for submission to the management and
\naccordingly, the negotiating unions submitted common demands
\nto the\trespective undertakings in the matter of revision of
\nwages. These  demands primarily\t related to  the  claim\t for
\naddition of Rs. 30 to the existing scales of pay.\n<\/p>\n
     The aforesaid  demands received  no response  whereupon
\nthe  negotiating  unions  gave\tnotices\t to  the  respective
\nmanagements of their decision to go on indefinite strike any
\nday after  10.12.1980. Conciliation  proceedings between the
\nmanagements and the unions then commenced and the strike was
\npostponed to 26.12.1980 on which date the workmen of all the
\nfive undertakings  struck work\tafter they rejected an offer
\nwhich had  been made  by the  managements  just\t before\t the
\ncommencement  of  the  strike.\tAfter  the  commencement  of
\nstrike,\t  conciliation\t  proceedings\tagain\tstarted\t  on
\n27.12.1980. On\t5.2.1981, when no agreement could be arrived
\nat, the conciliation officer submitted his failure report.\n<\/p>\n
     The strike\t in the\t H.M.T. watch factory was called off
\non  6.3.1981  and  thereafter  the  J.A.F.  took  a  general
\ndecision on  12.3.1981 to  withdraw the\t strike. The  strike
\nwas,  accordingly,  withdrawn  on  14\/15\/16.3.1981  and\t the
\nworkers resumed\t work on  subsequent dates.  No negotiations
\nfor settlement\tof the\tdemands commenced  and thereupon,  a
\ndecision was  taken by J.A.F. to laun h an indefinite hunger
\nstrike which  commenced\t on  29.4.1981\tand  continued\ttill
\n10.5.1981. The\tmanagements of\tB.E.L., B.E.M.L., I.T.I. and
\nH.A.L. declared a lock out in all their units located at
\nBangalore w.e.f. 6.5.1981 on the ground that the strike
\nhad  in\t fact  not  been  withdrawn  and  that\tthe  workers
\nContinued the  strike and  they\t also  carried\tout  violent
\nactivities inside the factory. Lock out was also declared at
\nKolar Gold  Fields for\tthe  same  reason  W.e.f.  8.5.1981.
\nThereafter, fresh  conciliation proceedings  were  commenced
\nand the\t lock out was lifted w.e.f 2\/3.6.81 and a settlement
\ndated 9.6.1981\twas arrived  at between\t the managements and
\nthe unions.  The terms of settlement in the cases of all the
\nfive  Bangalore\t  based\t public\t  sector  undertakings\twere
\nidentically worded  and these  terms of\t settlement were  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  The wage settlements dated 3rd
\n     and 4th  September, 1978  which are
\n     to expire of 30.6.1981 are extended
\n     upto 31.12.1982.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) The workmen  on the  rolls  of
\n     the company  as on the date of this
\n     settlement will  be paid a lump sum
\n     of Rs.  700\/- (Rupees Seven Hundred
\n     only).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) With\t effect\t from  1.1.1981,
\n     for the period they are entitled to
\n     wages, they  would also  be paid an
\n     ad-hoc allowance  of Rs.  25\/-  per
\n     month. This  amount will  count  as
\n     pay for all purposes except for pay
\n     fixation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv  All other terms and conditions
\n     relating  to  pay,\t allowances  and
\n     other monetary benefits in terms of
\n     the settlements dated 3rd September
\n     and  4th\tSeptember,   1978   will
\n     continue for the extended period of
\n     the settlement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v)  The\t Union\t  assures    the
\n     Management that they will assist in
\n     the  maintenance\tof   discipline,
\n     improving productivity and ensuring
\n     smooth production in the factory.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Even after the aforesaid settlement dated 9.6.1981, the
\nworkmen continued  to press  for wage  parity of the minimum
\nwage with  BHEL w.e.f.\t1.1.1978  on  the  ground  that\t the
\nsettlement of  9.6.1981 did  not settle\t the demands made by
\nthe unions  on 12.9.1980.  On writ  Petitions being filed by
\nthe unions  against B.E.L.,  I.T.I., B.A.L and B.E.M.L., the
\nKarnataka  High\t Court\tvide  its  decision  dated  9.8.1982
\ndirected the  Government of Karnataka to make a reference of
\nthe industrial\tdispute to  the appropriate  tribunal  under
\nSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
\nreferred to  as ‘the  Act’). This reference was accordingly,
\nmade  to  the  State  Industrial  Tribunal  by\torder  dated
\n23.4.1983. Two questions were referred to the said Tribunal;
\none was\t in respect of parity with employees of the BHEL and
\nthe second  was about  the illegality of strike and the lock
\nout. It\t appears that  the Governments\tor West\t Bengal\t and
\nMaharashtra  had   also\t made\tsimilar\t references  to\t the
\nrespective State Tribunals. Faced with this situation, where
\nreferences had been made to the tribunals in three different
\nstates, the  managements approached  the Central  Government
\nand thereupon  reference was made to the National Industrial
\nTribunal by  the Central Government on 10\/30.5.1984. To this
\nreference the  unions of  five Bangalore based public sector
\nundertakings, which  were situated  outside Bangalore.\twere
\nnot made  parties and  a writ  petition\t was  filed  in\t the
\nKarnataka  High\t Court,\t which\tby  order  dated  20.2.1985,
\ndirected the  Central Government to consider the question of
\nincluding  the\t State\tunions\t in  the   said\t  reference.
\nAccordingly, by order dated 3.5.1985 reference in respect of
\nall the\t units, all  regional  and  sales  offices  of\tfive
\nundertakings was  mads. The  terms of  the reference were as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Are  the\t workmen  justified   in
\n     demanding\t revision    of\t   wages
\n     bringing their  wages on  par  with
\n     BHEL  in\tview  of   the\trelevant
\n     clauses in the 1973 settlement?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  If  so,  what\t should\t be  the
\n     quantum and  the period  for  which
\n     such quantum  is to be paid in view
\n     of the  BHEL settlement  subsisting
\n     till the end of August, 1982?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  Are the  workmen of  Hindustan
\n     Machine Tools Ltd., Bangalore, (ii)
\n     Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Bangalore
\n     and Kolar Gold Fields,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) Indian  Telephone Industries,
\n     Bangalore\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) Bharat    Electronics\t   Ltd.,
\n     Bangalore and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v)  Hindustan  Aeronautics   Ltd.,
\n     Bangalore\tjustified  in  going  on
\n     strike w.e.f. 26.12 1980? If so, to
\n     what   relief   are   the\t workmen
\n     entitled?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  Are  the  managements\t of  (i)
\n     Hindustan\t Machine   Tools   Ltd.,
\n     Bangalore; (ii) Bharat Earth Movers
\n     Ltd.,  Bangalore\tand  Kolar  Gold
\n     Fields,  (iii)   Indian   Telephone
\n     Industries Bangalore,  (iv)  Bharat
\n     Electronics Ltd., Bangalore and (v)
\n     Hindustan\t   Aeronautics\t   Ltd.,
\n     Bangalore\tjustified  in  declaring
\n     lock outs\tof their  establishments
\n     with  effect   from   8\/9.5.81   to
\n     4.6.1981 at  Kolar Gold  Fields and
\n     7.5.1981\t to\t2\/3.6.1981    at
\n     Bangalore? If  not, are the workmen
\n     entitled to  wages for the lock out
\n     period or to any other relief?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  common statement  of claim filed by the unions,
\nit  was\t  contended  that  the\tworkmen\t were  justified  in
\ndemanding that\twages and wage structure be revised so as to
\nbring the  minimum wages on par with that obtaining in BHEL.
\nIt was\ta contention  of the unions that the relevant clause
\nin 1978\t settlement gave liberty to the workmen to raise the
\nquestion of  wage revision  as and  when there\twas a  final
\nsettlement in  BHEL or\tas and\twhen the Government of India
\ncommunicated a\tchange of  attitute in\tthe matter  of\twage
\nfixation.  The\t unions\t contended   that  in  view  of\t the
\nsettlement dated 8\/9.1.1980 in BHEL, the relative difference
\nin the minimum wage of the unskilled workmen in BHEL and the
\nworkmen in  the units  of H.A.L.,  B.E.L., B.E.M.L.,  and at
\nKolar Gold Fields was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      BHEL\t      BEL   BEML  HAL\nBasic wage\t      Rs. 335.00\t  Rs. 305.00\nDearness Allowance    Rs. 165.00\t  Rs. 125.00\nHouse Rent Allowance  Rs. 39.00\t\t  Rs. 35.00\nCity Compensa-\t      Rs. 15.60\t\t  Rs.\t-\ntory Allowance\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t    ———————————-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Rs. 554.60\t\t  Rs. 465.00\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    ———————————-\n<\/p>\n
     In\t addition   in\tBHEL  settlement
\n     there was\tprovision for giving one
\n     more increment  in revised scale to
\n     311 workmen  on  the  roll\t of  the
\n     company  on   the\t date\tof   the
\n     settlement.\n<\/p>\n
     With regard  to  quantum  of  increase  of\t wages,\t the
\nunions’ claim was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “1.  The  existing\t  scale\t of  pay
\n     should be\trestructured  by  adding
\n     Rs. 30.00 at the minimum and at all
\n     stages in each scales.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.(a) The irreduciable minimum D.A.
\n     for KGF  as on  1.9.1978 should  be
\n     revised to\t Rs. 133  as against Rs.
\n     128\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  For the purpose of computation
\n     of variable D.A. All India Consumer
\n     Price  Index   figures  should   be
\n     adopted instead  of local\tconsumer
\n     price index.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  For  the  existing  employees,
\n     basic pay\tshould be  fixed in  the
\n     following manne:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  Add Rs. 30.00\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  Add one increament.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  Add  one  more  increament  in
\n     lieu of  ‘next  higher  state’  (to
\n     avoid anomalies’.\tand  to\t provide
\n     for    consequential    adjustments
\n     benefits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  City\tCompensatory   Allowance
\n     should be paid at the rate of 6% of
\n     the basic wages.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.\t  The fitment  benefit which  is
\n     not  extented   to\t the   employees
\n     joining after the date of agreement
\n     should be extended to them”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  managements\tin  their  reply  refuted  the\tsaid
\ndemands. The  main contention, in this regard, was that when
\nthe demand  had been  raised for  revision of  pay after the
\nsettlement in  BHEL had\t been arrived  at, then the disputes
\nhad been  settled with\tthe payment  of ad-hoc amount of Rs.
\n700\/- and an additional ad-hoc payment of Rs. 25\/- p.m. from
\n1.1.1981 and,  therefore, the  question of  wage parity with
\nBHEL did  not survive any longer. It was also contended that
\nthe strike  of the  workmen was unjustified and illegal and,
\ntherefore, the workmen were not entitled to any wages during
\nthe strike  period. The\t further contention on behalf of the
\nmanagements was\t that even  after the strike had been called
\noff,  the   workers  had   resorted  to\t  various  acts\t  of
\nintimidations go-slow, beating up of the willing workers who
\nhad attended  factory  during  the  strike  period  and\t the
\nworkmen\t also\tresorted  to  other  forms  of\tindiscipline
\nincluding destroying  of company  property thereby making it
\nimpossible to  run the\tfactory under  normal conditions. In
\nsubstance the  strike conditions  were continued from inside
\nthe  factory   which  culminated  in  very  serious  violent
\nactivities which  led to  the declaration  of lock-out.\t The
\nsaid lock-out,\tit was\tsubmitted, was\tjustified and  legal
\nand, therefore,\t the workers  were not entitled to wages for
\nthe period during which the lock-out subsisted.\n<\/p>\n
     The Tribunal gave its award on 10.11.1989. While it did
\nnot separately\tdeal with  the issues which had been framed,
\nit considered  the contentions\tof  the\t rival\tparties.  In
\nbrief, the  conclusions arrived\t at by\tthe Tribunal were as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  The  scope   of  reference  in
\n     respect of\t parity\t with  BHEL  was
\n     only with\tregard to  minimum  wage
\n     payable to the unskilled workmen of
\n     the lowest\t category and, there was
\n     no reference  for revising the pay-
\n     scales during  the operation of the
\n     earlier settlements.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  The  relevant\t clause\t of  the
\n     settlement\t of  1978  had\tgiven  a
\n     right to  the employees  to ask for
\n     parity  with  BHEL\t in  respect  of
\n     minimum   wage   for   the\t  lowest
\n     category and,  therefore, there was
\n     no reason\twhy there  should not be
\n     any  parity   during   the\t  period
\n     covered by the settlement of 1978.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  The workmen  were entitled  to
\n     the minimum  wage of Rs. 500\/- p.m.
\n     w.e.f. 1.9.1978.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  The settlement dated 15.6.1981
\n     did  not  operate\tat  par\t to  the
\n     present reference\ton the\tquestion
\n     of parity\twith  BHEL  because  the
\n     settlement\t    dated     15.6.1981,
\n     although signed  in the  course  of
\n     conciliation   proceedings\t   under
\n     Section  12(3)  of\t the  Industrial
\n     Disputes  Act,  1947,  was\t without
\n     prejudice to the contentions of the
\n     employees to give parity in respect
\n     of\t minimum  wage\tfor  the  lowest
\n     category of BHEL. By the settlement
\n     of\t 15.6.1981,   only  an\t interim
\n     arrangement had been arrived at and
\n     the   payments    were   thereunder
\n     described by the Tribunal as ad-hoc
\n     payments,\tcould  not  be\tadjusted
\n     towards the  minimum  wage\t of  Rs.
\n     500\/- p.m.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)  Although, the strike commenced
\n     by the  employees in  all the  five
\n     Bangalore\t Based\t public\t  sector
\n     undertakings were\tillegal but  the
\n     Tribunal held  that this strike was
\n     justified as the Union of India did
\n     not agree\tto  the\t demand\t of  the
\n     employees with parity in respect of
\n     minimum  wage  of\tlowest\tcategory
\n     with BHEL.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)  The lock  out declared  by the
\n     managements   of\tthe   companies,
\n     except in\tthe case of HMT where no
\n     lock was declared, was justified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g)  The employees of the companies
\n     at Bangalore  should be paid 35% of
\n     the wages\tfor the strike and lock-
\n     out periods.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The aforesaid Award of the Tribunal has been challenged
\nby the\tmanagements of the five undertakings and the unions.
\nThe undertakings  filed special\t leave\tpetitions  impugning
\nthat part  of the decision of the Tribunal which had awarded
\na minimum  wage of  Rs. 500\/-  p.m. and had also not allowed
\nthe adjustment of Rs. 25\/- p.m. even though the minimum wage
\nwas fixed  at Rs. 530\/- p.m. Further more, the challenge was
\nalso to\t the award of 35% of the wages to the workmen during
\nthe strike and lock out periods.\n<\/p>\n
     Special Leave  was granted\t by this  Court on  2.4.1990
\nlimited to the three questions which were;\n<\/p>\n
     1)\t  Payment of  35% wages\t for the
\n     period of strike;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2)\t  Payment for the period of lock
\n     out; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3)\t  set-off  of\tRs.  25\/-   p.m.
\n     claimed by\t the  management,  which
\n     was disallowed by the Tribunal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The grievance  of the  workmen, which led to the filing
\nof these appeals by special leave, was on three counts:\n<\/p>\n
     i)\t  That there  had been\tinadequate increase of wages
\n     at higher grades;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii)  The Tribunal\thad ordered  discontinuance of C.C.A
\n     with  regard  to  the  employees  of  Indian  Telephone
\n     Industry;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii) 100%\twages for  strike and lock-cut period should
\n     have been awarded.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  contended by  Mr. Narayan\tB.  Shetye,  learned
\ncounsel on  behalf of  the managements,\t that  the  Tribunal
\nhaving come  to the  conclusion that the strike was illegal,
\ncould not  have awarded\t any wages  in respect of the strike
\nperiod. Similarly,  as the  Tribunal had  held that the lock
\nout was justified, it then could not have awarded 35% of the
\nwages for  this period\tto the workmen. Mr. Jitendra Sharma,
\nlearned counsel\t for respondents, however contended that the
\nstrike was  not illegal and in any event, as the said strike
\nhad been  called off,  no lock out could have been declared.
\nIn the\talternative, it was submitted that for the period of
\nlock out, which should have been declared to be illegal, the
\nworkmen were entitled to full wages.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  basis of  the evidence which was led before the
\nTribunal it  held, as  already noted,  that the lock-out was
\njustified because  the demand of the workmen, which had been
\nraised in  terms of  the settlement  of 1978.  had not\tbeen
\nagreed to  by the  Government. The strike was, however, held
\nto  be\tillegal\t because  I.T.I.,  H.A.L.  and\tH.M.T.\twere
\ndeclared to  be public\tutility services  and no  notice  as
\ncontemplated by\t Section 22(a)\tof the\tAct had\t been given.
\nAfter taking  note of the fact that conciliation proceedings
\nbetween the  managments and  the workmen  were going on when
\nthe strike commenced, the Tribunal concluded as follows;\n<\/p>\n
     “The strike  in the  public utility
\n     services and  in other undertakings
\n     was   illegal    because\tit   was
\n     commenced during  the  pendency  of
\n     the conciliation proceedings before
\n     the   Conciliation\t   Officer.   As
\n     mentioned above,  at about the same
\n     time when\tthe strike  notices were
\n     given conciliation\t proceedings  in
\n     respect  of   the\tdemands\t of  the
\n     workmen were  commenced and had not
\n     come to  an end when the strike was
\n     actually commenced\t on  26.12.1980.
\n     Admittedly,  by   that   time   the
\n     conciliation officer  had not  made
\n     any failure  report. The  strike in
\n     the public\t utility  services  viz.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ITI, HAL and HMT Hyderabad was thus
\n     in contravention  of clause  (d) of
\n     sub-section  (1)\tof  Section  22,
\n     while  the\t  strike  in  the  other
\n     undertakings    contravened    sub-
\n     section (a)  of Section  23 of  the
\n     Industrial\t Disputes   Act,   1947.
\n     There  is\talso  substance\t in  the
\n     contention urged  on behalf  of the
\n     managements  that\tthe  strike  was
\n     illegal  also  because  it\t was  in
\n     contravenetion of\tsub-section  (c)
\n     of Section\t 23. The  strike was not
\n     only   for\t   breach    and    non-
\n     implementation  of\t  some\tof   the
\n     clauses in the 1978 settlements but
\n     it\t was   in  respect  of\tall  the
\n     demands made  by the workmen by the
\n     notice hated  12.3.1980 and some of
\n     these demands  were in  respect  of
\n     matters   covered\t by   the   1978
\n     settlements which were in force”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr. Jitendra  Sharma, learned  counsel for the workmen,
\nhas not\t been able to persuade us to hold that the aforesaid
\nconclusion  arrived  at\t by  the  Tribuanl  with  regard  to
\nillegality of  the strike  is in  any way  incorrect. It  is
\nquite obvious  from the facts on record that the workmen had
\nresorted to  illegal strike. Without going into the question
\nas to  whether the  strike was\tjustified or  not, and\teven
\nassuming that  the Tribunal  was  right\t in  coming  to\t the
\nconclusion that\t the workmen  were  justified  in  going  on
\nstrike, the  question as  to whether  the workmen  would  be
\nentitled to  get any  wages during  the\t period\t of  illegal
\nstrike is no longer res integra.\n<\/p>\n
     A Constitution  Bench of  this Court  in Syndicate Bank
\nVs. K.\tUmesh Nayak,  (1994) 5\tSCC 572\t has held  that\t the
\nworkmen would  be entitled to wages for the strike period if
\nthe strike  was both legal and justified. In other words, if
\nthe strike was only legal and not justified or if the strike
\nwas illegal  and justified, the workers were not entitled to
\nwages for  the strike  period. It was observed that “Whether
\nthe  strike   was  legal   or  illegal\t and  justified\t  or
\nunjustified, were  issues which fell for decision within the
\nexclusive domain of the industrial adjudicator under the Act
\nand it\twas not\t primarily for\tthe High  Court to  give its
\nfindings on  the said  issues. The  said issues\t had  to  be
\ndecided by taking the necessary evidence on the subject”.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  aforesaid decision and inasmuch as the
\nstrike in  the present\tcase in all the five undertakings at
\nBangalore has  been held  to be illegal, therefore, no wages
\nfor the\t strike period\tcould have been awarded in favour of
\nthe workers.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards lock out is concerned, even if it is assumed
\nthat here  was non-compliance with the provisions of Section
\n22 of  the Act\tat the\ttime when the lock out was declared,
\nthe conclusion\tof the\tTribunal that  the lock\t out, in the
\ninstant case,  was legal  is not  incorrect. From  the facts
\nwhich have  been stated\t hereinabove, and  as found  by\t the
\nTribunal, it  is clear\tthat the provisions of Section 24(3)
\nof the\tAct are\t attracted to  the present case. The workmen
\nhad gone  on illegal  strike and  even when  the strike\t was
\nofficially   called  off,  they\t continued  to\tdisrupt\t the
\nworking of  the factories  while being\twithin\tthe  factory
\npremises. The Tribunal held that:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  managements\thave  placed  on
\n     record   sufficient   evidence   to
\n     substantiate their contentions that
\n     even though the strike was formally
\n     withdrawn and  the workmen reported
\n     for  duty,\t the  workmen  continued
\n     their  agitational\t disruptive  and
\n     violent activities\t from within and
\n     thus  in\tfact   continued   their
\n     illegal strike”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view  of this,\tthe Tribunal  rightly held  that the
\ndeclaration of\tlock out  must, therefore,  be\tregarded  as
\nbeing in  consequence of  illegal strike and, therefore, the
\nlock out  would not  be deemed\tto be  illegal even  if\t the
\nprovisions of  Section 22  of the Act were not complied with
\nby the\tmanagements. This being so and applying the ratio of
\nthe Constitution  Bench decision  in SYNDICATE BANK (Supra),
\nthe workmen would not be entitled to any wages in respect of
\nthe period  of lock  out. The  award of the Tribuanl to this
\nextent is, therefore, liable to be set-aside.\n<\/p>\n
     It was submitted by Mr. Shetye that the Tribunal having
\nincreased the minimum wage to Rs. 500\/- it ought not to have
\ndirected that  the payment  of Rs. 25\/- p.m. may not be set-
\noff. It\t was contended\tthat by\t increasing the wages to Rs.
\n500\/- p.m.  and also allowing the workmen to retain Rs. 25\/-
\np.m. w.e.f.  1.9.1978, the effect would be that the wages of
\nthese workmen  would be\t note than  the wages  of the lowest
\nrank of\t workmen in  BHEL. As this contention relates to the
\nconstruction and effect of the settlement dated 9.6.1981, it
\nwould be  appropriate, at  this stage,\tto also consider the
\ncontention of  Mr. Sharma  on behalf  of the  workmen to the
\neffect that  the Tribunal  ought to  have revised the lowest
\nscale and  bring it  at par  with BHEL’s  scale of  pay\t and
\nthereafter, it\tshould have  revised the  higher  scales  as
\nwell. This  submission was  based on  the premise  that\t the
\nsettlement of  1978 allowed  the workmen to ask for revision
\nof pay\tscale consequent on a settlement taking place in the
\ncase of\t any other  public sector  undertaking such as BHEL.
\nWhen the  settlement in\t BHEL had  taken place\tin  January,
\n1980, the  workmen of  these five public sector undertakings
\nwere entitled to contend and demand that their pay-structure
\nshould be  revised so  as to  bring them  at  par  with\t the
\nrevised scales\tof pay\twhich were  in existence in BHEL and
\nthat the  settlement dated 9.6.1981 was without prejudice to
\nthis right and could not preclude the workers from demanding
\nthe said parity.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of  HMT and  ITI, the\t clause relating  to
\nrevision of  pay was  the one  which was incorporated in the
\nsettlement dated  25.5.1978. Term  No. 1  in  the  agreement
\ndated 25.5.1978 does not postulate revision of pay scales in
\nthe event  of higher  wages being  paid to  the employees of
\nBHEL or\t employees of  any other  public sector undertaking.
\nThis clause gives to union only a right to take up the issue
\nregarding the  minimum wages  and  enhancement\tof  rate  of
\nneutralisation of  dearness allowance with the Government of
\nIndia if  the Government  agreed to  the improvement  in the
\nminimum wages or the dearness allowance neutralisation rate.
\nAt best\t this clause only gives a right to the union to make
\na reference  to the  Government of  India  for\trevision  of
\nminimum\t wages\tbut  does  not\tgive  any  vested  right  of
\nenhancement of\twages or  pay scales  in the  event of their
\nbeing a\t revision in any other public sector undertaking. In
\nthe case  of three  other public sector undertakings namely;
\nBEL BEML  and HAL an additional clause in the settlement was
\ninserted .  In BAL  the clause\twas 1.1. In BEML, the clause
\nwas as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “If  any\tcomparable   engineering
\n     industry  in   the\t Central  Public
\n     Sector such  as BHEL  etc., revises
\n     the minimum pay and D.A. as well as
\n     the D.A. neutralisation rate beyond
\n     what   is\t agreed\t  to   in   this
\n     settlement,  the\tissues\twill  be
\n     negotiated\t    bilaterally\t     and
\n     consequential  adjustment\tmade  in
\n     the wage  structure”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  case of HAL, the clause was
\n     as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “If a higher minimum wage or higher
\n     rate of  neutralisation of\t CPI  is
\n     agreed   to   in\tany   comparable
\n     engineering industry  such as  BHEL
\n     in the  Central Public  Sector, the
\n     management\t agrees\t to  review  the
\n     corresponding  provisions\tin  this
\n     settlement\t and   make   consequent
\n     adjustment in the wage structure in
\n     consultation with the Union”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The cause\tin BEML\t contemplated bilateral negotiations
\nin case of revision taking place in the minimum pay of BHEL.
\nIn  clause  1.1\t of  BEL,  the\tmanagement  agreed  to\tmake
\nnecessary modifications\t in consultation  with the union and
\nin the\tcase of\t HAL the  management agreed  to\t review\t the
\nprovisions of  the settlement  consequent on  a higher\trate
\nbeing paid  in BHEL.  The latter  three settlements no doubt
\nmake a\treference to  a revision  of pay  scales in  case of
\nrevision of  pay in  BHEL but no such reference is contained
\nin the\tsettlements of HMT and ITI. The unions of these five
\npublic sector  undertakings were taking a joint action. They
\nraised the  demand for\tthe  revision  of  wages  after\t the
\nsettlement of BHEL had arrived at in June, 1980. The demands
\nwere raised  by the  joint action front on 12.9.1980 and the
\nsame were in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
     “1.  The  existing\t scales\t of  pay
\n     should be\trestructured  by  adding
\n     Rs. 30\/-  at the minimum and at all
\n     stages in each case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  The irreducible  minimum  D.A.
\n     for Bangalore as on 1.9.1978 should
\n     be revised\t to Rs. 130\/- as against
\n     Rs. 125\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  For  the  existing  employees,
\n     basic pay\tshould be refixed in the
\n     following manner:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  Add Rs. 30\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  Add one increment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  Add one more increment in lieu
\n     of\t next  higher  stage  (to  avoid
\n     anomalies)\t and   to  provide   for
\n     consequential adjustment benefits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  City\tCompensatory   Allowance
\n     should be\tpaid at\t the rate  of 6%
\n     (in all places).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.\t  The Fitment  Benefit which  is
\n     not  extended   to\t the   employees
\n     joining after the date of agreement
\n     should be extended to them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t  The arrears  on account of the
\n     above should  be  worked  and  paid
\n     with effect from 1.1.1979″.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The settlement  of 9.6.1981 specifically dealt with the
\nclaim of  the revision of scale demanded by the workers. The
\ndemand was  for a  revision at\tthe rate  of Rs.  30\/-\tp.m.
\nw.e.f. 1.9.1978.  In view  of this,  in the settlement dated
\n9.6.1981  it   was  agreed   between  the  workmen  and\t the
\nmanagements that  all the  workers on  the pay\trolls of the
\ncompanies as  on 9.6.1781  would be  paid a  lump sum of Rs.
\n700\/-. This  clause contained  a benefit which was more than
\nwhat the  unions were  asking for.  The demand of the unions
\nwas for\t payment at  the rate  of Rs.  30\/- w.e.f.  1.1.1979
\nwhich would have meant that the employees who had worked for
\na longer  period would\thave got  more than  those  who\t had
\njoined the  service later.  Clause (ii)\t of  the  settlement
\ndated 9.6.1981\tgave a\tlump sum payment of Rs. 700\/- to all
\nthe employees  irrespective of the length of the service who
\nwere  on   the\trolls  of  the\tCompanies  as  on  9.6.1981.
\nCalculated at  the rate\t of Rs.\t 25\/- p.m.,  this sum of Rs.
\n700\/- would  amount to\tpayment in respect of 28 months i.e.
\nw.e.f. 1.9.1978\t to 31.12.1980.\t From 1.1.1981,\t the workmen
\nwere given  an ad-hoc  allowance of Rs. 25\/- p.m. It is thus
\nevident that  the claim\t which was  raised by  the unions in
\ntheir letter  of demand dated 12.9.1980 relating to revision
\nof pay\tscale stood concluded by the settlement of 9.6.1981.
\nThe demand  of the  union was more or less conceded inasmuch
\nas Rs.\t25\/- p.m.  were agreed\tto be  paid w.e.f.  1.1.1981
\ninstead of an addtional Rs. 30\/- p.m..\n<\/p>\n
     It was  submitted by  Shri Sharma that the terms of the
\nsettlement dated  9.6.1981 specifically\t mentioned that this
\nwas “without  prejudice to  the contentions of either party”
\nan expression  which is\t used in  the preamble\tof the\tsaid
\nsettlement. This  settlement dated  9.6.1981 in\t our opinion
\nhas to\tbe read\t as a  whole. It  has  to  be  read  in\t the
\nbackground of  the demand  which was raised by the unions in
\ntheir letter  dated 12.9.1980.\tThe main claim of additional
\namount of  Rs. 30  P.M. at  the minimum and at all stages in
\neach case,  as demanded by the workmen clearly stood settled
\nwith a lump sum payment of Rs. 700\/- and ad-hoc allowance of
\nRs. 25\/\t w.e.f. 1.1.1981  as agreed  to in the settlement of
\n9.6.1981.  The\tuse  of\t words\t“without  prejudice  to\t the
\ncontentions of\teither party”  can refer  to only such other
\npoints or aspects which were not specifically covered by the
\nterms of settlement which were arrived at on 9.6.1981.\n<\/p>\n
     The settlement  of 1978  was with regard to pay scales,
\nallowance and  other monetary  benefits. The  settlement  of
\n9.6.1981 brought  about a  change whereby  a sum of Rs. 95\/-
\nwas given w.e.f. 1.1.1981 in addition to lump sum payment of
\nRs. 700\/-.  Clause (iv)\t of the\t settlement  dated  9.6.1981
\nstated in  no uncertain\t terms\tthat  all  other  conditions
\nrelating to  pay allowances and other monetary benefits were
\nto “continue for the extended period of the settlement” i.e.
\nup to  31.12.1982. This would clearly show that the original
\nsettlement of  1973 with  regard to  pay-scales as  well  as
\nallowances and other monetary benefits were to continue upto
\n31.12.1982 subject  to the  increase of\t Rs. 25\/-  p.m. plus
\nlump sum  payment of  Rs. 700\/-. This settlement of 9.6.1981
\nwas arrived  at during\tthe  conciliation  proceedings\tand,
\ntherefore, was\tbinding on  the parties\t under Section 18(3)
\nread with  Section 19(2)  of the Act. The term of settlement
\ndated 9.6.1981\tdid not\t contemplate that the payment of Rs.
\n25\/- p.m.  w.e.f. 1.1.198  as liable  to be  adjusted in any
\nmanner. It  is no  doubt  true\tthat  the  Tribunal  by\t the
\nimpugned award\thas increased  the minimum,  wage to  Rs. 50
\np.m. because  the Tribunal  came to  the conclusion that the
\nsettlement dated  9.6.1981 did not preclude the workmen from
\nasking for  a revision in the minimum wage consequent on the
\nminimum\t wage  consequent  on  the  settlement\thaving\tbeen
\narrived at  in the  case of  BHEL. This\t conclusion  of\t the
\nTribunal, in our opinion, was incorrect but as leave had not
\nbeen granted  to the  management on this point, the decision
\nof the\tTribunal reviewing  the minimum\t wage at  the lowest
\nrank of\t Rs.500\/- p.m. as contemplated by the settlement, is
\npayable to  all the  workers in\t different scales of pay and
\nthe settlement\tdoes not  contemplate the  said amount being
\nadjusted in  any manner. This being so the contention of Mr.
\nShetye for adjustment of this amount cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     The last  question which  remains for  consideration is
\nwith regard to city compensatory allowance to the workmen of
\nI.T.I.. It  is not  in dispute\tthat prior  to the  impugned
\naward, C.C.A.  @4% was\tbeing paid to the workmen of I.T.I..
\nBy the\timpugned award\tthe Tribunal  increased the  minimum
\nwage to\t Rs. 500\/-  p.m, in  respect of BEL, BEML, H.A.L and
\nH.M.T.. The  break up  of this\tamount was  basic pay of Rs.
\n335\/- +\t irreducible D.A.  of Rs-  129.90 + variable D.A. of
\nRs. 35.10,  It was  stated in  the Award  that in respect of
\nthese four  companies, the  variable D.A.  shall be  at\t the
\nlocal consumer\tprice index  prevailing as  on 1.19.1978  at
\ndifferent units,  with quarterly  adjustments at the rate or
\n1.39 per  point or  rise or fall in the local indices. It is
\nnot disputed  that in  the  existing  wage  structure,\tcity
\ncompensatory allowance\twas not being paid to the workmen of
\nabove-mentioned four  companies because\t the local  consumer
\nprice index  used to  be higher\t than the All India Consumer
\nPrice Index.  In  view\tof  this  difference  in  the  price
\nindices, C.C.A.\t was being  paid to  the employees of I.T.I.
\nwhose rise  and fall in dearness allowance was controlled by
\nthe All\t India Consumer\t Price\tIndex.\tThe  Tribunal  while
\ndirecting that\tcity compensatory allowance will not be paid
\nto the\tI.T.I. employees  because it  is  not  paid  to\t the
\nemployees of  other public sector undertakings at Bangalore,
\noverlooked the\tfact that the local consumer price index was
\nadmittedly always  higher  than\t All  India  Consumer  Price
\nIndex. It  is for  this reason\tthat the  city\tcompensatory
\nallowance was  being paid  to the  employees of\t I.T.I.\t Mr.
\nShetye frankly\tconceded that if city compensatory allowance
\nis not paid to the employees of I.T.I. then over a period of
\ntime, the  salary of workmen of I.T.I. would be less than be
\nsalary\tof  the\t workmen  of  other  companies\tbecause\t the
\nvariable dearness  allowance of\t employees of B.E.L, B.E.M.L
\nand H.M.T.  will increase at a higher rate than the variable
\ndearness allowance  of I.T.I. employees which is linked with
\nthe rise  or fall  in All India Consumer Price Index. In our
\nopinion, therefore, the direction of the Tribunal dispensing
\nwith the  payment of  city compensatory\t allowance to I.T.I.
\nemployees was uncalled for.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  aforesaid discussion,  we conclude  that\t the
\nworkmen would  not be  entitled to  receive any wages during
\nthe period  of illegal\tstrike and  lock out; the payment of
\nRs. 25\/-  as a\tresult of  settlement dated  9.6.1981 is not
\nadjustable and\tthe direction  of the  Tribunal not to allow
\ndemand of  city compensatory  allowance to  the\t workmen  of
\nI.T.I. was  not correct. The Award of the Tribunal directing
\npayment of  35% of  the wages  during the  period of illegal
\nstrike and  lock out  and the  decision with  regard to non-
\npayment\t of   city  compensatory   allowance  to  I.T.I.  is
\naccordingly,  modified\tto  that  extent.  The\tappeals\t are
\ndisposed of  in the  aforesaid terms.  Parties to bear their
\nown costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian … vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees’ … on 29 October, 1996 Author: Kirpal Bench: J.S. Verma, B.N. Kirpal PETITIONER: H.M.T. LIMITEDWORMEN OF INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND Vs. RESPONDENT: H.M.T. HEAD OFFICE EMPLOYEES’ ASSO. AND ORS.THE MANAGEMENT O DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/10\/1996 BENCH: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL […]<\/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-15932","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nH.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian ... vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees' ... on 29 October, 1996 - 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\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian ... vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees' ... on 29 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-10T15:24:25+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=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian … vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees’ … on 29 October, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-10T15:24:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996\"},\"wordCount\":6447,\"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\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996\",\"name\":\"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian ... vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees' ... on 29 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-10T15:24:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian … vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees’ … on 29 October, 1996\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian ... vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees' ... on 29 October, 1996 - 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\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian ... vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees' ... on 29 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-10T15:24:25+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian … vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees’ … on 29 October, 1996","datePublished":"1996-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-10T15:24:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996"},"wordCount":6447,"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\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996","name":"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian ... vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees' ... on 29 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-10T15:24:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-limitedwormen-of-indian-vs-h-m-t-head-office-employees-on-29-october-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"H.M.T. Limitedwormen Of Indian … vs H.M.T. Head Office Employees’ … on 29 October, 1996"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/15932","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=15932"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15932\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}