LABOUR LAW – 2

CASE COMMENT

CROWN ALUMINUM WORKS v THEIR WORKMEN, 1958 AIR 30, 1958 SCR 651.

INTRODUCTION:

This case is based on the concept of minimum wages for the workmen and the
constitution of the work structure of workmen in an industry. As we all know that there is no
fixed or mandatory provisions that say once the structure of the wages is fixed it cannot be
reconstituted or amended for the sake of prejudice of workmen. And we all for a fact know that
the wages of the workmen shouldn’t go below the prescribed limit, which is why there is the
principle of minimum basic wages. And if any industry doesn’t follow the principle of minimum
wages by providing less wages for its workers below the prescribed or subsistence limit, then
such an industry can’t exist because it doesn’t fulfill the basic criteria to qualify as an industry.
The basic salary and dearness allowance is the main criteria involved in this case. The enjoyment
of workers from the basic salary structure and dearness allowance and as well as the working
hours are taken into consideration by the Industrial Tribunal and hence it modified and
reconstructed the same for the sake of workmen and the tribunal found it reasonable. But the
appellant that it the Crown Aluminum Works is not satisfied with the decision of the tribunal and
hence it was appealed before the Supreme Court. So this article briefs about the case its facts,
opinion, judgment and comment of the same.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Basically this is an industrial dispute between the crown aluminum works and its workmen. The
then West Bengal government made the sixth industrial tribunal for adjudication which was
under section 10 of the ID act. The learned counsel made clear after hearing the pleas of both the
parties and deeply looked into the appellant’s financial situation and rewarded for the same and
constituted the provision further which brought rage between both the parties. And after some
span of time there was a consolidated order which was released by the labour appellate tribunal,
this order brought satisfaction among the workmen but crown ltd. was not satisfied by the order.
And hence, the Labour Appellate Tribunal invalidated and dismissed the appeal. The workmen
of the crown ltd. Is completely fine with the order that was passed by the labour tribunal yet the
appellant, because of its financial crisis the crown ltd. isn't thus made this appeal further. The
fundamental complaint which the appellant side has made before the court for the litigant is in
regard of the modification made by the Appellate Tribunal in the pay structure which was
comprised by the appellant court. Subsequently, the contention between both the parties in the
current case exists in an extremely limited compass, by the by, it is important to make reference
about what about’s of the case. Basically the appellant is facing financial crisis as in to adopt the
features of the constituted amendment by the tribunal which doesn’t coincide with their company
because of economical breakdown of the company. Basically the company was a utensil
manufacturing company. During the given financial year the company was facing backdrop of
the economy. The business was very low compared to that of other years. And after the order
from the industrial tribunal that the workers must be given more dearness allowance and it
showed increase in the dearness allowance, which couldn’t be afforded by the appellant and the
order from the dearness allowance that was fixed by the first tribunal was expanded on the
ground of ascend in the typical cost for basic living index of the workers and the leave rules
endorsed by the prior grant were altered in the light of the arrangements of the Indian Factories
Act, 1948. After the first order had come into power the appellant updated its office reward from
time to time with the object of staying up with the ascent in the average cost for basic living
index. The outcome was that few segments which comprised the pay structure paid by the
appealing party to his workers left no reason for complaint to the workers. So they didn't raise
any contest for expansion in their dearness stipend and the litigant and its laborers were not
parties to the subsequent arbitration.

ISSUES:

There were 2 contentions raised from the appellant side:

1. The work structure which is connected to the basic wages and dearness allowance.
2. The correctness of the concession payment.
JUDGMENT:

The judgment was given by the bench consisting of CJ Gajendragadkar. For the first contention
of the appellant that is the work structure criteria, there should be added that even hypothetically
no pay structure can or ought to be updated to the bias of workers if the construction being
referred to falls in the classification of the uncovered means or the lowest pay permitted by law.
In the event that the pay structure being referred to falls in a higher classification, it is available
to the appellant can claim its modification even to the bias of the workers gave a case to such
update is made out on the benefits as per the general inclination of the tribunal. In managing a
case for such modification, the court may need to consider. As in the current case whether the
appellant’s financial crisis couldn't be sufficiently met by conservation in workmen which was
previously affected by the employer and endorsed by the tribunal. The court may likewise
enquire whether the monetary challenges confronting the business are probably going to be of a
brief term or will confront the business for a genuinely significant time-frame. It isn't required,
and would without a doubt be extremely troublesome, to state comprehensively all
contemplations which might be important in a given case. It would, nonetheless, be sufficient to
see that, in the wake of thinking about every one of the applicable realities, if the council is
fulfilled that a case for decrease in the compensation structure has been set up then it is available
to the court to consent to the solicitation of the employer to make proper decrease in the
compensation structure, subject to such conditions as to time or in any case that the court may
consider fit or practical to force. The court should likewise remember some significant functional
contemplation. Considerable decrease in work structure is probably about to prompt discontent
among workers and may bring a sense of disharmony between the employer and his workmen;
and that could never be to support the business all in all. Then again, in evaluating the worth or
significance of conceivable discontent among workers coming about because of the decrease of
wages, modern courts will likewise need to consider the way that if any industry is troubled with
a compensation structure past its monetary limit. And the appellant’s side did have hope to strike
the contention because of certain circumstances but for the country as a whole it might be
difficult to do so.

The second contention that is made for the concession payment is that The Appellate Tribunal
has taken the view that these concessional paying truly added up to payments made to the
workers as an issue of right. The rising of these concessional paying lies in the authorization
Factories Act. Before the new Factories Act, the appealing party's workers chipped away at a
normal for 59 hours of stir comprised of the typical 54 hours of work and extra time. After the
Factories Act came into power, the working hours must be decreased however to repay the time-
rate laborers for decrease in their wages, the administration added to the day by day profit of
such specialists the wages for two hours. The extra two hours' wages in this manner granted to
the laborers came to be known as two hours' concession or extraordinary reward. The extra was
amended now and again the upward way at a graduated scale connected to the basic pay in
chunks . Moreover, the appealing party acquainted food concession with workers. In this way the
constitution of the compensation structure in the appealing party's anxiety included dearness
stipend, office reward and food concession. As per appealing party the extra was an extra
recompense for the significant expense of living especially on a similar balance as dearness
stipend. It was paid on the grounds that the laborers requested and it was feasible to pay it around
then. In this manner, the employer help to the workers' case that the payments being referred to
comprised a piece of the compensation construction of the litigant. To be sure, even in the
proclamation of the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal in the current procedures, it is
explicitly asserted that earlier the Industrial working structure comprised of five things, which
are:

(1) Fundamental pay or the Basic Pay

(2) Dearness allowance

(3) Unique reward or additional reward

(4) Office reward or extraordinary remittance

(5) Food concession.

In this association, it would likewise be material to bring up that it was on the grounds that these
extra payment were made by the litigant to its laborers that the workers didn't raise any question .
In addition, these payments have been made for certain years and that likewise is a pertinent
factor to consider in managing the genuine character of these payments. In the event that the
Labour Appellate Tribunal considered every one of these realities and held that the payments
being referred to are not issue of abundance however that, fundamentally and in substance, they
structure part of the essential compensation and dearness remittance payable to the workers,
there is no motivation to meddle with its decision.

HENCE, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED.

ANALYSIS:

Basically in this case, we can see the struggles that are the financial struggles of the employer to
run a company or an industry. But it is stated that unless until the employer can face the financial
he can no longer run a business or an industry. Although, there is a scenario where we can’t
predict the economic ups and downs exactly. Sometimes some businesses goes down and it is
totally agreeable but in case of wages of the workmen there should be at least the basic pay for
the workers who are the breadwinners of each family respectively. The decent work and the
basic pay with dearness allowance is mandatory for the workers and it doesn’t mean they enjoy
them unconditionally without any limits and if so, where it happens in certain cases then there
will be circumstances that leads to the outcome of the same. But in this case the workmen didn’t
raise any dispute against the employer. It is the right of the workmen to get wages and their
allowances without any disturbances through peaceful means with the employer that is what the
labour and the industry’s important principle. And the concession payment is wholly correct as it
has the fundamental principles of the labour law is seen here. Thus, unless until there is an
unavoidable circumstances which also comes with disputes of workmen. Thus the plea was
dismissed and this case law became one of the landmark judgments in the concept of minimum
wages and work structure.

SUBMITTED BY :

SG. Anjali Karuthamma,

Bc0180004.