SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-K. Subba Rao and K.C. Das Gupta, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1958. D/d. 8.2.1960.

Port Engineering Works - Appellant

Versus

Workers - Respondent

For the Appellant :- C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (P.K. Chakravarti and B.N. Ghosh, Advocates, with him).

JUDGMENT

Subba Rao, J. - This appeal raises a question in regard to production bonus. The facts relevant to the question may be briefly stated. The appellant, M/s Port Engineering Works (hereinafter called "the Company") has its registered office at Calcutta. It has been carrying on work in the following three main lines: (a) casting and general jobbing engineering, (b) sugar mill machinery, and (c) boat repairs i.e. repairs of inland water transport vessels. Some of the employees of the Company are working as time-rate workers and others under piece-rates. The Company has also a foundry department employing about 150 workmen. These workmen were earning extra income as over-time wages; but in January 1955, on an objection taken by the Factory Inspector, the practice of giving over-time work to them was given up. As a result of the stoppage of over-time work, the employees in the foundry department became disgruntled and there was dislocation and laxity in the said department. In those circumstances, production bonus was first introduced in the foundry department. At first the scheme of production bonus was made applicable only to the coolies with a hope that it might be extended to moulders also at a later stage. But for one reason or other, the appellant did not extend the scheme to moulders and this resulted in a strike on 13-7-1955. At the intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Howrah, the said scheme was extended to the sweep-moulders. But on 5-8-1955, the moulders were told that they had not earned any production bonus. This led to a sit-down strike by the moulders; and the Company withdrew the scheme. The Government of West Bengal referred the industrial dispute between the appellant and the respondents to the Judge, Vth Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, for adjudication on the question of production bonus among others. The Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the scheme was practically given no trial at all inasmuch as it was in force only for about six weeks and therefore the scheme should be introduced over again and given a fair trial at least for three months. If it did not work satisfactorily, the Tribunal gave the direction that the Company should try to reach an agreement with the workers in a bipartite conference to see whether the target should be lowered down so as to make the bonus available to the workmen who put in a good amount of extra labour for production. The Tribunal further directed that if even then it was found unworkable, it should be abandoned. The Company filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave of this Court confining the appeal only to the question of production bonus.

2. The learned Solicitor-General appearing for the appellant contends that both the appellant and the respondents agreed before the Tribunal that the scheme of production bonus as framed by the appellant was unworkable and that, therefore, the Tribunal should have either evolved a better scheme of production bonus or, if it found that it was not possible to do so, it should have rejected the claim of the respondents. Another trial of the scheme for three months, the argument proceeds, is an unnecessary burden on the appellant and may lead to serious dislocation of work, when it is common case that the scheme is not workable. There is apparent plausibility in this argument, but we are satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal's order must stand.

3. The statement filed on behalf of the respondents before the Industrial Tribunal does not contain any clear and unambiguous admission that any scheme of production bonus would not be workable in the case of moulders. In the written-statement the Workers' Union stated thus:

"... the management without consulting the workmen declared its decision in finalising the scheme the basis and calculation of which were evidently unscientific and unreasonable under which the workmen will not get the benefit of more work properly."

"... the workmen naturally made protest against such arbitrary and unscientific scheme and requested the Company to revise the scheme on proper reasonable basis."

The Union further stated that "a scientific production bonus scheme be introduced so that the workmen may get fair returns" and that a scheme of production bonus would be submitted by it later on. It is, therefore, clear that the Union did not accept the position that no production bonus scheme was workable; but what they stated was that the scheme as framed by the appellant should be so revised as to give them the benefit of their work. Not only they did not refuse to accept a production bonus scheme, but, in their written statement, insisted upon a proper scheme for production bonus being framed. In the supplementary statement, the Union clearly averred that the Company agreed to give the workmen the benefit of production bonus, that according to the assurance the workmen gave more production in expectation of production bonus and that to their utter surprise, they found that the Company had framed the production bonus scheme without consulting them and then declared at the end of a production period that the said workmen would not be entitled to any production bonus for that period under the said scheme.By this statement also the Union clearly indicated its acceptance of the scheme, though it complained that under the scheme framed by the Company behind the back of the workmen, the Company stated that no production bonus would be payable to the workmen. There is, therefore, no basis for the learned counsel's contention that the respondents were one with the appellant for scrapping the scheme. Unfortunately, before the Industrial Tribunal neither the appellant nor the respondents put forward any acceptable suggestions for modifying the scheme. The Tribunal, therefore, was not in a position to evolve a better scheme; nor was it in a position to hold that the scheme propounded by the management was unworkable, for admittedly it was not worked sufficiently long to enable the Tribunal to come to a definite conclusion. In the premises, the Tribunal thought of giving another chance to the parties for working the scheme presumably in the hope that the workmen would cooperate with the management to make it a success. The conditions imposed by it would also be a real deterrent for the workers becoming recalcitrant in their attitude. Further it was left to the discretion of the management to give up or modify the scheme, if it did not work well and if no agreement was reached between the parties. That the hope of the Tribunal was not unjustified is amply borne out by the fact that the respondents did not prefer any appeal against the award insofar as it went against them indicating thereby their intention to cooperate with the appellant in the working of the scheme.

4. No other points arise for consideration. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

.