H.M.T. LTD. versus H.M.T. HEAD OFFICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

H.M.T. LTD. versus H.M.T. HEAD OFFICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Wages for periods of illegal strike and lockout are not payable even if the strike is justified. The 1981 settlement concluded the demand of parity of minimum wages, and Rs. 25 ad hoc allowance is not adjustable against increases granted by the Tribunal. City compensatory allowance should not be discontinued to ITI employees as its purpose was to address disparity caused by different price indices.

Parties
Appellant: H.M.T. LTD.; Respondent: H.M.T. HEAD OFFICE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION; Tribunal: National Industrial Tribunal at Bombay; Respondent's Advocate: Jitender Sharma; Respondent's Advocate: Tripurari Ray; Respondent's Advocate: Vineet Kumar; Respondent's Advocate: Ms. Madhu Moolchandari; Respondent's Advocate: M.C. Narsimhan; Respondent's Advocate: Ms. Gunwant Dara; Respondent's Advocate: B.K. Pal; Respondent's Advocate: K.C. Gupta; Respondent's Advocate: Ms. Sheela Goel
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Disposition
Outcome
Appeals disposed of; tribunal award modified to deny payment of 35% wages for illegal strike and lockout, direct Rs. 25 ad hoc allowance is not adjustable, and restore city compensatory allowance to ITI employees. Parties to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Minimum Wages, Industrial Strike, Lockout, Settlements, City Compensatory Allowance
Labour Law Minimum Wages Industrial Strike Lockout Settlements City Compensatory Allowance

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.M.T. LTD.

Appellant

H.M.T. HEAD OFFICE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

Respondent

National Industrial Tribunal at Bombay

Tribunal

Jitender Sharma

Respondent's Advocate

Tripurari Ray

Respondent's Advocate

Vineet Kumar

Respondent's Advocate

Ms. Madhu Moolchandari

Respondent's Advocate

M.C. Narsimhan

Respondent's Advocate

Ms. Gunwant Dara

Respondent's Advocate

B.K. Pal

Respondent's Advocate

K.C. Gupta

Respondent's Advocate

Ms. Sheela Goel

Respondent's Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement of wages during periods of illegal strike and lockout
  2. 2 Adjustment and enhancement of minimum wages in light of industry parity settlements
  3. 3 Discontinuance of city compensatory allowance to employees of Indian Telephone Industries

Ratio Decidendi

Wages for periods of illegal strike and lockout are not payable even if the strike is justified. The 1981 settlement concluded the demand of parity of minimum wages, and Rs. 25 ad hoc allowance is not adjustable against increases granted by the Tribunal. City compensatory allowance should not be discontinued to ITI employees as its purpose was to address disparity caused by different price indices.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of; tribunal award modified to deny payment of 35% wages for illegal strike and lockout, direct Rs. 25 ad hoc allowance is not adjustable, and restore city compensatory allowance to ITI employees. Parties to bear own costs.

Orders

  • No wages payable for period of illegal strike and lockout.
  • Payment of Rs. 25 ad hoc allowance is not adjustable.