National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. versus Their Workmen

The appellant runs a steel mill and there arc various departments in the mill which arc grouped under three headings. By agreement between the management. and the workmen different production targets and different incentive bonus schemes for different departments have been in force for some time. The respondent No. 2 on behalf of the workmen claimed that incentive bonus scheme at present in force should be revised so as to cover those catagories of workmen who arc at present out of it. It was further claimed that the present targets of production should be refixed and brought to the 1948 level. On the failure of the parties to come to a settlement the Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. .

¶10

\

¶11

. The Tribunal by its award directed the revision of production targets in certain departments. With regard to the claim for extension of the scheme to the clerical and Watch and Ward Staff and the workmen in the shopping department the Tribunal awarded the exlension at certain specified rates. The claim for revision of the rates of bonus in the indirect productive department was rejected. Tho Tribunal also rejected the claim of the workmen that the rate• of 'production bonus to all catagories of workmen should be made uniform.

¶12

The appellants thereupon appealed to this Court by way of special leave. The main question raised in the appeal was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to refix the production targets as well as the rates of incentive bonus. A further question raised .was whether piece-rate workmen are entitled to incen.tive bonus. The appellants made a grievance of the fact that their request to appoint assessors for giving opinion on technical matters was rejected by the Tribunal. They also alleged that the Tribunal had no adequate data before it to determine the proper production targets.

¶13

;

¶14

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 661

¶15

Hela;, that the Tribunal ought to have borne in mind · the fact that for the determination of technical matten it is alway& desiral:ile to have the assistimce of persons who are familiar with the subject and it should not deny to itself the opportunity of obtaining the, appropriate material. While it is the function of the management whe.ther or not to intro. duce a scheme of incentive bonus, once such a scheme is introduced the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to vary ) the scheme including the rates of bonus. But the scheme should not be interfered with lightly. The Tribunal is entitled to consider whether the scheme is erroneou~, unrealistic or unreasonable. Where after consideration or relevant materials the Tribunal finds the targets are too high it can refix them. But it should also see that the targets fixed are not too low.

¶16

1912

¶17

Nalional Iron and Steel C1. Lit/. v.

¶18

The,ir w,,kme •

¶19

Hela;, also, that piece·rate workmen are entitled to be paid at a higher rate . for the excen they have produced beyond a norm. But in fixing the higher rate care should be taken to avoid glaring disparity between the total earnings of an average piece-rate worker and of a time-rate workman working over the same period.

¶20

Crvn. APPELLATE JuRISDIOTION: Civil Appeal No. 208 of 1962.

¶21

Appeal by special leave from the award dated ·" August 19, 1960, of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No. VIII-119 of 1958.

¶22

A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. K. Bose and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.

¶23

D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent No. I.

¶24

.._; Janardan Sharma and B. P. Mahe.ahwari, for respondent No. 2. · 1962. August 21. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by.

¶25

MuDHOLKAR, J.-The substantial question , which falls for decision in this appeal by special -, leave a~ainst an award made by the Third Industrial Tribunal. West Bengal, centres round the

¶26

Mudholkar J.

¶27

662 SUPREME COURT OOPORTS (1963]

¶28

196B

¶29

196B question of production bonus. The appel11tnt comp- National Iron and any Tuns a steel mill at Belur. There a.re various

¶30

Steel Tf.eir IVorkmen Co .. Ltd • under departments three headings: direct productive departme-in the mill which have been grouped nts, indirect productive · departments and non- M udholkar J. productive departments. In the last mentioned group come the general office, accounts department, establishment department, time office, stores, shipping deµartment, drawing and design departm· ent, laboratory, progress and planning department, civil· construction department, watch and ward department, medical department and welfare department. The first group consists of the following five departments :

¶31

Steel foundry

¶32

\

¶33

Electric Furnaces

¶34

Rolling Mills

¶35

Bolt and nuts shop and

¶36

Machine shops. The second group consists the following d11partm~~ =

¶37

~

¶38

Refractory attached to the electric furnaces

¶39

Mill G\lneral, attached to the rolling mills

¶40

Roll turning, attached to the rollin~ mills

¶41

../

¶42

Yard Mazdoors, attached to the rolling mills and

¶43

Ii. Civil maintenance department, electri0 maintenance department and mechanical maintenance department.

¶44

It is common ground that each productive department has an intlividual tar~et for the puqiose

~·

)

._ -

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 663-

¶50

3 S.C.R.

¶51

of payment of production bonus over and above the wages. The existing targets were fixed (a) in 1948, in electric furnaces and rolling mills; (b) in Dece'Jlber, 1956, in the steel foundry and (c) in January, 1959, in the bolt and nut workshop. According to the appellant the t:i.rgets were revised from time to time in consultatiion and with the concurrence of the representatives of the workmen of the depar.tment concerned as and when occasion arose for doing so in consequence of the adoption of better methods of production, new techniques, additio11 of plant and machinery etc.

¶52

J9ill

¶53

Nattonol /rqn and - Steel Co. LU. - .. Their Workmen

¶54

Mudb-.,/karJ.

¶55

The workmen in three indirect productive depn.rtments. namely, refractory attached to the electric furnace, 'mill general' attached to the rolling mills and roll turning attached t,o the rolling mills are paid production bonus at the rate of 75% of the average rate of production bonus earned by the' respJctivA direct productive department to which these three indirect -productive departments are attached.

¶56

--.

¶57

The Yard Mazdoors attached to the rolling mills are paid on the basis of an arbitration award which is subsisting between the workmen and the company.

¶58

In civil,_maintenance, electric maintenance and mechanical maintenance departments, the workmen are paid production bonus at the rate of 75% of the average rate calculated on the basis of production bonus paid to the workmen in the productive departments taken together.

¶59

In the steel foundry department, the target was 2i) pounds per man per dav until the end of 1956. Towards the end of 1956 tbe Appellant had direct nrigotiations with the workers' represenhtives of he department, and in view of the aditions to the

¶60

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]

¶61

1962

¶62

National Iron and .S1a1 .. o •. L•i. . v. f"h•ir Workmen

¶63

M udholkar J.

¶64

plant and machinery and provision for additional facilities and working space and improvement in the technique of production which raised considerably the production capacity of tile said department, it w&s agreed to raise the target upto 25 pounds per man per day, The value of machinery and plant added to this department alone would be about Rs. 2 lakhs. About Rs. 4.5 lakhs worth of electric cranes were also subsequently installed .. T)iey are working for this department and the electric furnace department. Since December, l!J56 there have been further additions of machinery etc .• to the extent of about Rs. 3 lakhs in this department alone. ·

¶65

According to the appellant the workmen all along 'worked without protest against the targets in force from time to time. But nine months after the revised targets came into operation the second respondent, which is one of the two unions to which the workmen of the company · belong, protested against the raising of targets in the steel foundry department form 20 to 25 pounds.

¶66

¶67

According to the appellant company, different schemes for payment of incentive bonus have been adopted in the different departments because incentive bonus is directly linked up with production tar· gets. These ta~gets, according to the appellant, have been fixed by direct negotiations with the workman's representatives in the respective departments as for instance the increase of the targets in the steel foundry from 20 pounds to 25 pounds per head per day at the end of the year 1956. The respondent No, 1 which is the other union did not make any protest in this matter and indeed even in the proceedings before the Tribunal it did not join hands with the second respondent.

¶68

The Governme.nt of West Beniral, having come to the conclusion that an industrial dispute had arisen between the appellant ·and its workmen

¶69

3 S.d.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

~1

_,

. -.

)

' ._,,

\

with respect to the payment of incentive bonus, referred it for adjudication to the Third Ind~strial Tribunftl under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both the unions filed their written statemets before the Tribunal. Subsequently disputes on the same question with three associate companies were also referred for adjudication to the same Tribunal. We are, however, not concerned with the disputes other than the one in which tbe appellant, the National Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., is concerned.

¶77

The substance ofthe claims made on behalf of the worktnen by the 'respondent No. 2 may be briefly summarised thus:

¶78

The incentive bonus scheme at present in force should be revised so as to cover those categories of workmen who are at present out of it and to remove all anomalies in the existing scheme as weII·as to remove such differences as are found to exist. It is further claimed that the present targets of production should be refixed and brought to the 1948 level.

¶79

The first respondent did riot attack the target.3 on the standard of performance or production existing in the different departments of National Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The main thing it wan ts is that the scheme of incentive bonus should be extended to all productive departments at the same rate withoutt making any distinction between alleged direct productive workmen and alleged indirect productive workmen.

¶80

lt wants .that workmen in the indirect productive departments should be paid incentive bonus at the same rate at which workmen of the productive department to which the particular indirect productive department is attached are paid. It also wants that a workman employed in the maintenance department, civil .maintenanc.e department

¶81

is12

¶82

~ Narion.l Iron and Steel co. Ltd "· Their Workmtn ,....__ Mudholkar J._

¶83

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i963j

¶84

-- J96S and siding maintenance department of the appe" NaUonal Iron out Hant should be paid one half of the total rate sr,.1 Co. v. Lti, arrived at by adding the rates at which all the Their Workmen productive departments of the appellant as also the workmen of the associate companies are paid. Mudholkar J. As regards the workmen employed in the non-productive departments it wants them to be paid bonus at one-fourth of the total rate arri'l'ed at by adding the rates at which the workmen in the productive departments are paid. It wants also that four employees in the shipping department should be paid at the rate at which the workmen of the rolling mills department are paid and the three chemists in the laboratory should be paid the same ·rate as workmen in electric furance department. Finally it wants incentive bonus to be assessed on the basis of basic wages and dearness allowance earned by the workmen and also on the basis of the total earnings including the earnings for the days described .as non-productive days. .

¶85

We may mention here that the appellant has ·denied that there were any anomalies in respect of the incentive sch1imes in the various departments. The stand that it takes is that the introduction of such schemes being entirely the function · of the management the company is under no legal or moral obligation to extend it to all categories of workmen. The claim of the respondent No. 1 for the revision of targets and removal of anomalies and differences in the existing bonuses is thus said to be wholly unfounded. The appellant has further justified the classification of departments into direct productive, indirect productive and non-productive . on the ground that it is in conformity with the existing practice in the industry. The employees in the productive departments are paid incentive bonus at the full rate which is normally payable for them for the

..,., r .'

667

a s.o.h. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶90

work they do and that there is no practice of employing direct produc.tive workers in the indirect productive departments and that the workmen employed in ~he maintence department are paid at 75% of the average bonus. Production bonus, according to it, is paid to such workmen as are directly engaged in production work and maintenance and that non-productive workmen are not covered by the existing scheme. It also disputes the claim made by the first respondent on behalf of four clerks in the shipping department and the three chemists in the Ja.~oratory.

¶91

1061

¶92

Notion•l. Iron anll 8 teil Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmtn

¶93

Mudhollur J.

¶94

After the statements were filed by all the parties i~ was urged on behalf of the appellant that issues should be framed. But the Tribunal did not accede to the request. Ultimately. by an order made by it, the Tribunal said that it would adjudi· cate only on those points which were raised in sub· paragraphs "l, 2(b) and (c) of paragraph 18 of the written statement filed by the NISCO Karmachari Sangha (respondent No. I) and also on the points raised in the prayer portion in paragraph 25 of the written statement of Belur Iron & Steel Workers' Union (respondent No. 2)".

¶95

The Tribunal first considered the question of

¶96

the revision of tragets. According to it the target in the steel foundry department which was raised in

¶97

~ December, 1956 from 20 lbs. to 25 lbs. should be reduced to 23 lbs. In regard to the electric furnace department, rolling mills, bolt and nut shop and maohine shop the Tribunal held that the target should be 50% of the productive capacity or effici· ency of the workmen of the department. It negativ· ed the ola.im of the workmen for removal of the

¶98

\ ' alleged anomalies in ·the existing bonus scheme, WN1 regard to the workmen's claim for the exten•

¶99

\

¶100

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rn63j

¶101

1962 sion of the scheme to the clerical and watch and N·ltiona! . lrori aryd . ward staff the Tribunal held as follows: Stl"f'i Co. Ltd. v. "This incentive production bonus shall be paid

¶102

The·, Workman to workmen of the non-productive depart•

¶103

"This incentive production bonus shall be paid to workmen of the non-productive depart• ments at ~he rate of 12-1 /2% of the total rate to be arrived at by adding the rates at which all the productive departments may be paid. This rate is allowed in considera.tion of the fact that the workmen of the non-productive departments are not directly connected with production bht only remotely. The calculation of this bonus will be made with reference to basic pay only excluding D.A."

¶104

lltudho_lkar J • . '

¶105

·-

¶106

The Taibunal further held that this would also apply to the four workmen in the shipping department and three chemists in the laboratory, In so far as the workmen employed "in . the indirect productive department were concerned the Tribunal held that there was no case for making any change because the present rate of 75% of the bonus pa,id to the workmen of the productive departments was fair and reasonable. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the workmen that rates of production bonus to all categories of workmen whether employed in direct productive or indirect produqtive dep:i.rtments have to be uniform.

¶107

One of the points urged on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal and taken in the statement of the case is that the introduction of incentive bonus, fixation of targets and .fixation of production hours is a function of the management and the Tribunal has no right to interfere. It has been held by this Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Go. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1) that while it is the function of the managemtmt whether or not to introduce . a. Y ! scheme of incentive bonus, once such a scheme is • // (I) [1959] Supp. 2 s.c.R. l 012.

¶108

3 S.C.R .. :suPREME COURT REPORTS 669

¶109

~ 't introduced the right to claim such bonus become~ a condition of service of workmen and, therefore, the Industri11 Tribunal has jurisdiction to vary the scheme enforced by the employer including the rates of bonus. This Co:urt has pointed out in that case that the payment of incentive bonus is payment of further emoluments to the workmen depending not upon extra profits but upon extra production, as an incentive to them to put in more than the standard performance. Where, therefore, the . management has introduced a scheme for· the grant of such bonus it is open to the Tribunal to vary the terms of the scheme if tho circumstan. ces of the case justify its d9ing so. In view of the decision in that case Mr. Vishwanatha Sastri fail'ly conceded that the tribunal .had jurisdiction to refix the targets as well as to refix the rates of the incentive bonus provided it found that the targets were too high or the rates wholly incommensurate to the additional performance put in by the workmen.

¶110

·His main grievance on this score, however, was that the Tribunal had no material before it for

¶111

- reducing the targets in the steel foundry depart· ment from 25 lbs. per capita per day to 23 lbs. He further contended that the view of the Tribunal that the targets for the other direct productive depa.rtmcnts should be 50% of the capacity of the unit or· the efficiency of workmen would lead to startling results. He also drew our attention to an

¶112

1962

¶113

N ationa/ Iron an { Steel Co. L11: v. Their ltVmk;nen" .1Judho/kar J.

¶114

.< application made by the appellant during the ·course of the proceedings before the Tribunal for the appointment of aswssors for the purpose of giving opinion on various technical matters which have to be borne in mind for the preparation of a scheme for incentive bonus payable to workmen engaged in different departments of the appellant.· No order

¶115

-~as passed on this application by the Tribµnal even though on. being reminded of its omission to do so the Tribunal promised to make an order later. So here .!if we are •• faced with a situation where ' t4erc;i

¶116

. .

¶117

670 SUPREME COURT REFOR'fS [1963] I

¶118

•

¶119

1901

¶120

1901 is no adequate data for judging what would be **_National /rQn <Jnd_** reasanable and proper targets from the point of _Sllel Co._ v. _Ltd,_ view of both the employeres and the employees and **_!l'IIeW Werkmen_** what would be the reasonable. rates of incentive bonus. The Tribunal would have_ done well to bear in mind the fact that for the determination of technical m>.1tters'it is always desirable to have the assistance of persons who are familiar with the subject. No doubt the ultimate decision would rest with Tribunal but since the decision has to be liased on proper material it should not have denied to itself the opportunity of obtaining the appropriate material. On this one ground alone the award of the Tribunal with respect to the fixation of targets and the rates of incentive bonus in the various departments will have to be quashed.

¶121

For revising the target of 25 lbs. per capita per day in the steel foundry department the Tribu· nal had hardly any material before it. It failed to give due importance to the fact that the original target of 20 lbs. was raised to 25 lbs. by the appellant after discussing the matter with the workmen concerned and with their consent. The Tribunal would do well to remember that though it has power to vary an existing scheme and, therefore, also the targets provided therein, it canno~ do so lightly. Primarily it is the function of the management to fix and ordinarily even to revise the targets. No doubt, in exercise of this function the management must consult the workmen concerned. But where all that has been done and the revised targets are the result of agreement between the management and the workmen there must be good reasons for revising the targets.

¶122

"'

¶123

,__

¶124

What the Tribunal has done with respect to ,,. the targets in the other productive department is still more unjustified. As already stated it has fixed • t4e targets in these departments at 50% of the total . . ' (

¶125

3 S.C.R.

¶126

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 671

¶127

productive capacity per month in these mills or 50% of the effi.ceinoy of the workmen employed. It has directed that incentive bonus should be calculated at the present· rate on the quantum of production in excess of those revised targets. On the face of it, it would appear to have fixed the targets at very low levels and the . result of doing this would be that half or more than half of the total earnings of a workman would come to him by way of incentive bonus without the production going up. Its scheme, rather than proving as an incentive to production, would virtually be a disincentive.

¶128

19(11

¶129

Nalional Iron and Sf11l Co. Lid. TA1ir Workmen "'

¶130

< Mudho/kar J.

¶131

Speaking about premium systems Florence Peterson in her "Survey of Labour Economices", revised edition, has observed at p. 329 :

¶132

"No matter what name they go by, all premium· systems have one distinct characteristic, namely, a guaranteed rate with premium payments for production beyond an established standard. The standard may be in terms of units of output or units of time, that is, minutes or hours ....

¶133

The essential distinction in the various incentive systems have to do with (I) the point or level of production at which premiums begin, and (2) ~he formula used for determining premium rates.

¶134

In all premium systems the crucial factor is where the 'task' or 'standard' is set. The policy adopted can tend towards either of two directions, namely, a strict standard which is difficult to accomplish, with high premiums for better than standard, or a lenient standard with relatively small permiums. If a very strict standard is set which can be exceeded

¶135

.. ~

¶136

672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]

¶137

1962

¶138

National Iron and Steel Co; Lid. y, lh1ir Workmen .A1udholkar .J.

¶139

only through the best efforts of the most competent wor·kers, the guaranteed rate tends to become the actual earnings rate for most of the workers. If, on the other hand, ll, relatively easy standard is fixed, the, major portion of the total earnings of most employees on the job will consist of premium wages .

¶140

...

¶141

The second fundamental distinction in incentive plans has to do with the formula for the division of gains when above-standard production is .attained, regardless of whether or not the established standard is high or low ....

¶142

•

¶143

Increasing the ratio of returns to the worker is obviously done for the purpose of encouraging ever higher production. Plans providing for a decreasing ratio of returns, or a declining wage curve, are based upon the principle that increased output not only is a result of the workers efforts but is also due to improvement in working conditions for which management is responsible, and that management should therefore 'share' in the gains .... "

¶144

Bearing in mind these observations and the fact that ordinarily the rate of incentive bonus is correlated to the target it would follow that if the target originally fixed by the employee is very high then the existing incentive bonus payable may well be regarded as having been fixed high. Whether that is in fact so or not would, however, be a question' to be decided by the· Tribunal. In this case the Tribunal without considering this point has directed that · incentive bonus should be paid to the workmen in the qeparteqt coqcer.qed at the existin rates eye.q

¶145

'r t

¶146

3 S.C.R, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 673

¶147

though the targets have been halved. That direction is not proper. On behalf of the workmen Mr, Sharma alleged that the exis_ting targets are . fixed so high that for earning· incen-L:ve bonus the workmen have to sweet. This contention also needs to be examined by .. th·e .~ Tdbunal. -Now, since the scheme of incentive bonus already prevails in most of the departments of the company the Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to consider · whether the existing scheme is onerous, unrealistic, · unreasonable or otherwise. We would, however, reiterate that the scheme should not be interfered ·with by the· Tribunal unless it comes to the definite conclusion that the targets fixed are so high that an average working with ordinary efficiency can earn· only the daily wage but nothing more. It would render the task of the Tribunal easy if it tries to elicit the requisite information from assessors as well as from others conversant with the operations in each department. Where, after considering the relevant .material the Tribunal finds that targets are too high or not reasonably attainable, it will undoubtedly be within its competence to refix them. But while refixing them it should take care to see that the targets are not so low that the major portion of the total earnings of most employees will comiist of incentive bonus. Thus in revising the scheme prepared by the management the Tribunal has on the one hand to guard the interest of the workmen and prevent what may fairly be called sweating and on the other it has to see to it that the revised targets do not encourage laziness or reduce production to low or uneconomic levels. The Tribunal should further bear in mind that where the targets have been agreed to between the employer and the employees and even though a scheme of incentive bonus has been in operation for some time and the workmen have had exprience of it no complaint has been made by them that the scheme is onerous. This would be a relevant circumstance to be taken t • , , . ' . ~

¶148

196! . . . ~ ,,,

¶149

'Ndtionl J.rn.tllld·:,, Stet! Co. Ltd!:i .'. . v •... Their Wo1kmm .. , Mudholka~ '.h .. ,

¶150

674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]

¶151

1111

¶152

/l ~~lmml ltOJI a,id '~~Ca.Ltd. ' .. Theil Werkmca I M.Ull"°''jk.; J.

¶153

into consideration when a demand is made long after the scheme has been in force for revision of targets. Again it must bear in mind the effect on production aseribable to improved techniques or to the installation of improved machinery. Here the Tribunal has adverted to none of the matters. To put it mildly, the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the question is wholly unsatisfac. tory.

¶154

We do not underestimate the difficulty presen· ted by the question of fixing of targets. Perhaps . the Tribunal's task in this regard would be rendered less difficult if,, for instance, it can obtain material from which it could ascertain what the average production in each department was before the introduction of the original scheme and before improved techniques ware introduced and better machinery installed. In the light of the material . before it, the Tribunal should consider whether the old production could safely be accepted as the targets, We realise that here it is the appellant's case that the adoption of better techniques and installation of new machinery has made it possible for the workmen to produce more in the same time. This (lOntiintion of the appellant needs to be exami ned. Here again, expert opinion will be valuable. If the Tribunal finds that the increase in production is solely ascribable to the innovations made and the workload of the workmen has not been increased, there would be a case for the upward revision of the old targets correspondingly. A complication will undoubtedly arise where the workload of workmen has increased. When such is th., case the Tribunal will have to bear in mind the fact that workmen are after all human beings and not machines, that they are apt to feel tired if they have to work at a a higher tempo than in the past, that performing mechanical operations over a long period produces not only boredom but also a great strain on the

¶155

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 675

¶156

3S.C.R.

¶157

' '

¶158

muscular powers of workmen with the result that it produced inore fatigu, physical as well as psycho· logical. In such a case the revised target must, therefore, be reasoriably below the level at which results of these kinds are apt to ensue. What we have said is not exhaustive of the factors to be borne in mind and it would be open to the Tribunal to bear in mind such other factors as would be relevant in this connection.

¶159

The next question which has to be co:1sidered is the extension of the scheme for payment of incentive bonus to the clerical and watch and ward staff. In Burn &: Oo., Ltd. v. Their workmen (1) this Court 1 held that from the point of view of economics the clerical and subordinate staff in an industry, like its manual workers, contribute towards its production and there <:an, therefore, be no reason for excluding them wholly from the benefits of a scheme of incentive bonus. It was urged before this Court on the authority of decision in Titagkur Paper Mills case (2) that the introduction of incentive bonus is the function of the management and the . Tribunal should not impose a scheme for payment of such bonus on the management. Dealing with this contention this Court observed :

¶160

--· N atianal b tn aml Sterl Co. Ltd. v.

¶161

Tlleir W 9rkmtn

¶162

Mufhafkar l~

¶163

"In the present case, however, the incen· tive bonus scheme has already been introduced by the company for the major part of its workmen and all that is now asked for is that the benefit of the scheme should be extended to the remainder of the workmen."

¶164

, -.,,

¶165

Mr. Viswanatha Sastri has not challenged the correctness of the view taken by this Court in Burn &J Oo' s case. (1). His main grievance with regard to the direction in the award extending incentive bonus scheme to clerical and · watch and (I) (1960) 3 s.c.R. 323, 426. (2) ('959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 1012: ,.

¶166

676 SOPREME COURT REPORTS (1963)

¶167

1962

¶168

Nationbl J;o;; a,;d St.tl_CQ. Ltd. I . 1jh1ir Wo'·.r:ne. I-"'.""'." Af":'dhol~~r J,

¶169

ward depariments is that if implemented it would entitle these workmen to get in effect !00% bonus or perhaps even more. There are, as already stated, five productive departments and five indireot productive departments. Now, if we take 100 as the rate in each productive department the rate for the five indirect productive departments would be 7 5 and the total for all the departments would come to 875 and 12-1/2% of that would come to nearly I IO ! It is posssble, as Mr. Sharma suggests that this is not what the Tribunal intended to do and that what it intended was to take the average rate for all the productive and indirect productive departments and give 12 of the average rate as bonus to the workmen of the non-productive departments. It may be that that was the intention of the Tribuna,J but the way in which it has expressed itself leads to the absurd result that the workmen employed in the non-productive departments will actually get more incentive bonus than workmen emyloyed in the productive departments :

¶170

Before, however, coming to the conclusion that

¶171

the scheme of incentive bonus should be extended to these workmen the Tribunal would do well to ascertain whether a case has been made out by them for grant of incentive bonus. Indeed one of the grounds which persuaded this Court in Burn & Co's case (1) to extend the scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical staff was that there was increase in their work in consequence of rise in

¶172

· production. The Tribunal would do well to ascertain whether in view of the increased production there has been a rise in the workload, if we may use that expression, with regard to non ·pndtictive workmen. If it finds that the workload has increased they could be held entitled to incentive bonus.

¶173

(1) (1960) 3 S.C.R. 423, 42f).

¶174

3 s.c.:R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 677

¶175

We may further point qut that in Burn & Go's case (1~ the Tribunal did not proceed to Jay down the ·rate of incentive bonus to th~ clerical and subordinate staff but merely directed the company to extend the scheme to them and ·Jay dr>wn the rates and conditions for those classes of workmen to be entitled to get the incentive bonus. This Court has impliedly approved this direction. Indeed, bearing in mind the principle that initially the whole question of incentive bonus involving the fixation of targets, prrscribing rates and laying down other conditions is the function of the man3.gement, we have no doubt that the course taken by the Tribunal in Burn & Co's case C) was the proper one.

¶176

1962

¶177

-~

¶178

·hNationa/.lron ·th St•el Oo •. Ltd ...

¶179

·Thiir· :Workmen

¶180

.Mudholk.a J.

¶181

One more question remains to be considered and -· that is the contenation of Mr. Viswanatha Sastri that no question arises for payment of incentive . bonus to piece-rate workmen. B;is argument is that if a piece-rat3 workman produces more he earns monJ and,· therefore, there is nothing more that he is entitled to. We do riot agree. Even with regard to piece-rate workmen there is a norm andlif a piece-rate workman produces anything beyond that norm he should be entitl,ed to be paid for the e-xcess at a higher rate. That is what is being <;lone in Enghnd and other industrialised countries like the United States and there appears to be no reason why it should not be required to- be done in our country. Wha.t the enhanced rate should be would necnssarily be· a matter to be determined· with the assistance of assessors as well as of the com· pany and the workmen. We would, however, admininister a caution. Th, .result of prescribing a . higher rate for production above the norm should not lead to a glaring disparity between the total actual earnings of an average piece-rate workman and of a time-rate workman working over the same period of time. For, a wide disp~rity may lead to (I) ( 1960) 3 S.C.R. 423, 426.

¶182

6,8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS'[1963j

¶183

-- 1962

¶184

1'·aliOnal lion dJ ' SIL_n Co.Lid • •• Th4ir Workmm

¶185

' Mudhcliar J.

¶186

discontent, which is something which must be avoided in the interest of the industry as well as the workmen.

¶187

For the reasons stated above we quash the award ill so far as it relates to the fixation of targets in the various departments of the appellent, fixation of rate of incentive bonus for time-rate workmen as well as piece·mte workmen and extension of the scheme to non-productive departments and remand the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication after appointing assessors, considering all relevant material placed before it by the parties to the dispute and make a fresh award in the light of our observations. The rest of the award is affirmed.

¶188

There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed case nmanded in part.

1982

NARAIN SINGH

v.

STATE OF PUNJAI:

(JAFAR IMAM, J.C. S:Q:AH and J,R. MUDHOl.1Ll.R, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Murder-Prosecution evidence discardea-Convictwn on statement of accusea....:.statement pertly exculpatory and partly inculpatory-lf must. be used as a whole-,--Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898(Act V of 1898), •• 342.

¶194

The appellant and three others were charged with the murder of B. The prosecution case was that there was a dispute between B and the accused over diverting the flow of water in the fields, that the appellant armed with a stick and the others with spear, kaholi and salang assaulted B and B died of the injuries infliced. In his state· ment ant stated under s. 342 Code that B had thrown of Criminal him on Procedure the appel-the i:round and had -"'""-.

¶195

"'""-.

National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheikh Abdul. Ka Yum versus Mulla Alibhai

Gurcharan Singh versus State of Punjab

R. Ramachandran a Yyar 10-08-1962 versus Ramalingam Chettiar

The Provincial Transport Service versus State Industrial Court

V. Narasimha Raju versus v. Gurumurthy Raju and Oth.T£Rs

Ishwari Prasad Mishra versus Mohammad Isa