HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. versus RAM MOHAN RAY & ORS.

HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. versus RAM MOHAN RAY & ORS.

Both awards by the tribunals—one in favour of the employer in the main reference, and the other in favour of the employees in the applications under section 33A—should be upheld as the evidence and issues were different. The employer's introduction of the new scheme did not require notice under section 9A but non-payment of wages to workers refusing to work under the new scheme amounted to alteration in conditions of service, justifying applications under section 33A.

Parties
Appellant/employer: Hindustan Lever Ltd.; Respondent/employees: Ram Mohan Ray & Ors.; Appellant/union (in C.a. No. 1759/1971): Mazdoor Sabha (Calcutta Branch)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 March 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals by Special Leave / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
All appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Industrial Disputes, Conditions of Service, Employer's Managerial Prerogative, Notice Under Industrial Disputes Act, Alteration of Service Conditions, Wages, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Labour Law Constitutional Law Industrial Disputes Conditions of Service Employer's Managerial Prerogative Notice Under Industrial Disputes Act Alteration of Service Conditions Wages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Appellant/employer

Ram Mohan Ray & Ors.

Respondent/employees

Mazdoor Sabha (Calcutta Branch)

Appellant/union (in C.a. No. 1759/1971)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals by Special Leave / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reorganisation of the employer's business required notice under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  2. 2 Whether non-payment of wages for refusal to work under the new scheme amounted to an alteration in conditions of service during the pendency of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether conflicting findings of different tribunals on similar issues rendered the procedure illegal.

Ratio Decidendi

Both awards by the tribunals—one in favour of the employer in the main reference, and the other in favour of the employees in the applications under section 33A—should be upheld as the evidence and issues were different. The employer's introduction of the new scheme did not require notice under section 9A but non-payment of wages to workers refusing to work under the new scheme amounted to alteration in conditions of service, justifying applications under section 33A.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Awards of both tribunals upheld; no order as to costs.