Messrs. Crown Aluminium Works Vs Their Workmen

Messrs.
Crown Aluminium
Works vs Their Workmen
Submitted by:
Suksham Kuwatra
BALLB- 4th year
Section – C
DME LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
CASE BRIEF
• The appealing party organization was joined in the United Realm, with its enlisted office in
London and its business in the United Kingdom comprised of stores and food, including tea
which addressed uniquely around 10% of its business there
• Its tasks in India were continued by a branch with its administrative center in Calcutta, and the
business there comprised principally in the offer of packeted tea all through India
• The Delhi office of its Indian branch controlled the sales reps and different workers utilized in
the Punjab, Delhi State, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, however had no association with the
commodity side of the business
• The Indian Branch had no bought in capital nor any stores, and the capital utilized in India was
cash progressed from the organization's reserve in England. The question between the
respondents who were the workers of the Delhi office and the organization related, bury alia :-
CASE BRIEF
1. “obsession of grades and sizes of pay”

2. “whether review impact ought to be given to the new sizes of, pay”; and
3. “reward for the year 1951. The respondents fought that the complete worldwide benefits of
the litigant organization ought to frame the reason for deciding the case to reward on the
ground that it was an incorporated industry which had exchanging exercises different
nations”
• The Tribunal observed that the Indian laborers in no manner contribute to the benefits which
the appealing party organization got from its ex-India business, that the Indian branch kept
up with separate records which had been evaluated and acknowledged by the Annual
expense specialists as showing the benefit and loss of the Indian part of the business, and
that however, at the applicable time, the litigant organization was one lawful substance also,
the capital of the Indian branch came from London, the Indian branch was treated as a
different element for all viable purposes.
• The Tribunal additionally tracked down that for there was no accessible excess for
conveyance as reward to the representatives in India. In the issue of obsession of grades also,
sizes of pay, the Tribunal viewed that as the current size of wages of the Delhi workers was far
beneath the standard of a living compensation, and for fixing the pay level it thought about
the organization's worldwide ability to pay also, arrived at the resolution that having respect
to its worldwide assets the organization was monetarily ready to bear a somewhat higher
compensation structure.
CONTENTIONS
• The appealing party battled that the Tribunal blundered in taking into thought the worldwide
monetary assets of the organization on the side of an expansion in compensation while
holding that the Indian branch was a different element for the instalment of reward, that the
monetary assets of the Indian branch showed no ability to pay higher wages, and that, in any
case, there was no dependable proof to show that the existing compensation structure
required update assuming it was analysed to the compensation structure in comparative
businesses in the Delhi locale. An inquiry was likewise raised with regards to whether the
Modern Tribunal, Delhi, had locale to make an grant in regard of workers of the Delhi office
who were utilized external the State of Delhi
HELD
• that this court would be normally reluctant to entertain an objection that any consideration
on which the Appellate Tribunal bad relied was either invalid or unwarranted by the
evidence on record. Where it finds that certain payments were in fact not gratuitous
but were in substance part of the wages and dearness allowance its decision is not
liable to be set aside
• that on the finding that the Delhi office controlled all its employees in the matter of appointment,
leave, transfer, supervision, etc., whether employed in Delhi State or outside it, the Industrial
Tribunal, Delhi, had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute between the appellant company and
its workmen of the Delhi office, as the Delhi State Government was the appropriate Government
within the meaning of s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947, and under s. 18 of the Act the
award made by the Tribunal was binding on all persons employed in the Delhi office
• that in the circumstances in which the appellant company operated in India at the relevant
time and on the finding that no part of the profits made in India was diverted to England and
that the Indian business depended on its own trading results the global profits of the
company could not be made the basis for awarding bonus to Indian workmen, and that the
latter can claim bonus only if there was an available surplus of profits of the Indian business
• Although there can be no inflexible and inexorable show that a pay structure once fixed
can never be changed to the bias of the workers, there are all around perceived standards
on which such modification should be founded, one significant rule, to which there can be no
exception, is that the wages of workers can't be permitted tofall underneath the uncovered
means level. It follows, hence, that in industry can have the right to exist if it cannot be
kept up with besides by bringing the wages beneath that level
• Consequently, in case where the Industrial Tribunal fixed the wage structure and the
dearness allowance but gave the employer liberty to abolish the two hours'
concessions, facility bonus and the food concession, holding them to be in the nature of
bounty gratuitously paid to the workmen by the employer, and the Labour Appellate
Tribunal tookthe view that these concessions, which had been enjoyed by the workmen for
a pretty long time as of right and as part of their basic wages and dearness allowance, had
become a term of the conditions of their service and revised the wage structure in respect
of existing workmen by incorporating the concessions into their basic wages and
dearness allowance and in doing so relied not merely on the convention that the
existing emoluments of workmen should not be reduced to their prejudice but also on
other considerations which were neither invalid nor unwarranted by the evidence, its
decision was valid in law
THANK YOU

Messrs. Crown Aluminium Works Vs Their Workmen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Messrs. Crown Aluminium Works Vs Their Workmen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Messrs. Crown Aluminium Works Vs Their Workmen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Messrs.

1. “obsession of grades and sizes of pay”

You might also like