IN-Abs/train-data/summary/3277.txt

The 118 respondents are workmen of the appellant company`working in different departments of the company 's works.
Respondents 1 to 14 are Syphon Pumpers.
They filed 14 applications before the Additional Authority under s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming overtime wages for the period February 1957 to January 1958.
Respondents 15 8 are Mains workers.
They filed 66 applications before the same authority claiming overtime wages for tho period December 1956 to November 1957.
Respondents 81 to 118 filed 38 applications before the Third Additional Authority claiming wages for weekly of days.
They belonged to the Mains, Heating Appliances and Fitting Department 'they had joined the appellant company after 1948.
Before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act the company contended that all the claims were barred under an award of the Industrial Tribunal in Ref.
No. 54 of 1949, which was made on 30 3 1950 and published on 11 5 1950.
The Tribunal held that workers of Services and District fittings departments and lamp repairers who used to work till 1948 on all the seven days of the week, would be entitled to be paid weekly day off.
The Authority held that (1) the claims of the Booster Attendants for wages for overtime work and weekly off days were covered by the award, (2) the claims of Applicants other than Booster Attendants were not covered by the award, and (3) the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act was not applicable to them, and dismissed the applications of respondents I to 80.
The applications made by respondents 81 to 113 were allowed by the Third Additional Authority holding that the award was no bar to those applications, and that the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act were applicable.
The Court of Small Causes, Bombay, which dealt with the appeals filed by the workmen and the company held that the claims of workers for overtime.
wages and wages for weekly off days were barred by the award.
It also held that the appellant company was a commercial establishment within The meaning of that terms under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act.
All the workmen filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Court of Small Causes.
The High Court held that the claims of the respondents were not barred by the award and remanded the applications of respondents I to 80 to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for ascertaining and decreeing the amount.
As regards respondents 81 to 118 the judgment of the Third Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was restored.
This appeal is preferred on the basis of the special leave granted by the Supreme Court.
Dismissing the appeal, ^ HELD: (1) An award of an Industrial Tribunal in a reference under section is of the binds not only persons who were the workmen of the employer at the time the award was made but also workmen who came tc.
work under the employer after the award.
It would not be correct.
therefore, to hold that they would be entitled to be paid separately for the weekly day off.
It must be presumed that their scales of pay were the same as for the workmen who were working before 1948 also.
There was no averment to the contrary.
They cannot, therefore, be allowed an extra benefit which would not be available to the same category of workmen who were working under the employer since before 194&.
[295B C].
(ii) The reasoning of the High Court that the workmen are entitled to be paid for the days off either under the award or under section 18(3) of the Bom 292 bay Shops and Establishments Act, is not correct.
The High Court seems to A have assumed wrongly that there was a scale of wages for weekly off days under the award [295C D] (iii) The specific case of workers in the Mains Department has been dealt with and rejected; so also in the case of coke supply coolies and motor drivers The Workmen concerned here being all workman of the Mains department, the question of their being paid overtime wages under the provisions of the award does not arise.
[297A B] (iv) The doctrine of res judicata is a wholesome one which is applicable not merely to matters governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but to all litigations.
lt proceeds on the principle that there should be no unnecessary litigation and whatever claims and defences are open to parties should all be put forward at the same time provided no confusion is likely to arise by so putting forward all such claims.
[298D] Devilal Modi vs Sales Tax officer ; relied on Bombay Gas Co. vs Shridhar Bhau A.I.R. 1961 SC 1196 referred to.
(v) The workmen could and ought to have raised the question that even if they were not entitled to claim overtime wages at the same rate as payable to workers governed by the Factories Act, they should at least be paid the same rates as the payable to persons governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act.
The workers neither put forward the contention that they were entitled to the benefit of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act nor even that on considerations similar to those applicable to the persons governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act they should also be paid overtime wages under the provisions of that Act.
[298A C]