Hindustan Hosiery Industries V.s F. H.
Lala & ANR  INSC 26 (8 February 1974)
CITATION: 1974 AIR 526
Bombay Industrial Relations Act,
1946--Workmen's demand for revision of basic wages and dearness allowance of
time-rated and piece-rated workers with retrospective effect--Concepts of
minimum wage, fair wage, and living wage.
Principles of wage fixation.
Constitution of India Art.
136--Practice--Principles governing interference with awards of Industrial
Tribunals--Power not to be exercised so as to convert Supreme Court into a
court of appeal.
On a demand by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha for the
revision of basic wages for time-rated and piece-rated workers and for the
revision of dearness allowance, reference was made to the Industrial Court
Maharashtra u/s 73-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Court found
that on the face of it, the wages provided for the workmen of the factory were
inadequate and tow and even in a loss-making concern, such wages have to be
raised. The Court further held that although the business was started by the
appellant in 1967, it had earned profits of Rs. 1,51,000/in 8 months of 1967
with a capital of Rs. 2,28,000/-. The appellant Company also earned profits of
Rs. 1,88,000/on the capital of Rs.
3,42,000/in 1968. The Court, therefore, held
that the appellant-company was prosperous and its financial position was sound
so its to take the burden of the revision of pay scales and dearness allowance.
The industrial Court fixed the minimum wages at Rs. 5/and fixed higher wages in
a graded manner to the maximum of Rs. 8.50. per day. The Tribunal also ranted
for every rise of 10 points or part thereof, above the index bracket 621-630,
dearness allowance @ 10P per day. The wages of the piece-rated workers were
raised by 30 per cent.
On appeal by special leave to this Court, the
appellant raised the following contentions : (i) the Tribunal erred in ignoring
the difference between minimum ",age and fair wage;
it was in fact granting fair wage and did not
take into account the well-settled relevant factors in making the award; (ii)
the Tribunal absolutely ignored the aspect of the capacity of the appellant to
bear the burden of the additional rise in wages on account of the award; (iii)
there is no justification whatsoever for allowing the present increase of wages
without following any principle and even higher than the statutory minimum wage
fixed in respect of other industries in the state.
The Sabha, on the other hand, submitted as
follows : (i) the Tribunal his awarded only minimum wage; (ii) even if it is
assumed that the wage awarded is a. little higher than the minimum wage, it is
certainly lower than the lowest level of the fair wage; and (iii) in order to allow
the wage increases the Tribunal had before it materials from the evidence
furnished in the Stretchlon Award as well as the trend of wage rates with which
the Tribunal must be expected to be familiar, in the region and in the
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (i) From a perusal of the award it is
clear that the Tribunal was considering the case from the point of view of
granting something higher than the subsistence or bare minimum wage bordering
on fair wage. This conclusion has been reached since the yardstick of the
present award is the Stretchlon award which was seeking to determine some kind
of fair wage. [307C] (ii)Front an examination of the decisions of this Court,
it is clear that the floor level is the bare minimum wage or subsistence wage.
In fixing this 303 wage. Industrial Tribunals will have to consider the
position from the point of view of the worker, the capacity of the employer to
pay such a wage being irrelevant. The fair wage also must take note of the
economic reality of the situation and the minimum needs of the working class
having a fair sized family with an eye to the preservation of his efficiency as
a worker. [310D] Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. and another v. Union of
India and others  S.C.R. 12, Messers. Crown Aluminum Works v. Their
Workmen  S.C.-R. 651 quoted in  S.C.R. 12, Kamani Metals and Alloys
Ltd. v. Their Workmen  2 S.C.R. 463/467 Hydro Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
Their Workmen  1 I.L.J. 713/716 M/s Jaydip Industries, Thane v, The Workmen
 1 L.L.J. 244/247 V. Unichoyi v. State of Kerala  1 S.C.R. 957,
quoted in  1 L.L.J.
244/247 and MIS Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v.
The Workmen  1 L.L.J. 576/590/591, referred to.
Piece-rate is what is paid by results or
outturn of work.
There is greater consideration to quantity in
fixing piecerates in some particular types of work in some industries with a
guaranteed minimum. The same standard may not be appropriate in all types of
piece work. Factors such as the importance of man rather than the machine
employed, correlation of piece-rates with time-rates of the same or similar
class of workers, special skill of the worker with or without machine, the time
factor in work and payment of a guaranteed minimum will have to be considered.
There may be a misty penumbra which has got to be pierced through upon all
available materials on record and also on what the Tribunal, in fairness, can
Jay its hands on, with notice to the parties, for the purpose of fixing the
piece-rates balancing all aspects. The central figure. in the adjudication,
however, is the wage-earner who should have a fair deal in the bay-gain in a
real sense as far as can be without at the same time ignoring the vital
interests of the industry whose viability and prosperity are also the mainstay
of labour. [310G] (iii)Art. 136 of the Constitution does not create a right of
appeal in. favour of any person. It confers power on the court which should not
be so exercised is to convert the court into a court of appeal. Though Art. 136
is couched in the widest terms. it is necessary for this Court to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction only in cases where awards are made in violation of
the principles of natural justice. causing substantial and grave injustice to
parties or raises an important principle of industrial law requiring
elucidation and final decision by this Court or discloses such other
exceptional or special circumstances which merit the consideration of this
Court. Taking a comprehensive view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
no intervention is called for with the award. [311E] Bengal Chemical and
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen,  Supp. 2 S.C.R. 136, referred
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 548 of 1970.
Appeal by Special Leave from the. Award dated
the 29th January, 1970 of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, in
reference (IC) No. 2 of 1969.
G.B. Pai, Prakash Mehta, O. C. Mathur and P.
C. Bhartari, for the appellant.
H.K. Swami, P. H. Parekh and S. Bhandare, for
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byGOSWAMI,
J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an award of the Industrial
Court, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to for 'brevity as the Tribunal) of
1970. There was a .reference by the Mill
Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay (briefly the Sabha) under section 73A of 'the Bombay
Industrial Relations Act, 1946, in 304 pursuance of a notice of change dated
22nd August, 1968.
The Sabha demanded revised basic wages for
the time-rated workmen of several categories and also a rise of 50% in the wage
of the piece-rated workers in the Consumers' Price Index bracket 621-636 (old
series). The Sabha also demanded dearness allowance of 10 paise per day for
every rise of 10 points or part thereof above the said siab. They also claimed
the benefits retrospectively from 1st June, 1968.
The Sabha submitted its statement of claim on
14th February, 1969.
It appears that the appellant is a
partnership firm which was constituted and commenced production in April 1967.
The firm manufactures and sells nylon and hosiery goods such as socks,
undergarments, and the like. It is registered with the Maharashtra State
Directorate of Industries as a small scale industry. Prior to April 1967, all
the partners of the appellant were partners of a firm known as M/s.
Hindustan Hosiery Factory. That firm again
was constituted and commenced business on and from 15th December, 1963, after
the dissolution of India Hosiery Factory on 14th December, 1963, due to
differences amongst the partners. On the same date, some other partners of
India Hosiery Factory constituted another firm known as Stretchlon Private Ltd.
While Stretchlon Private Ltd. continued to
function, Hindustan Hosiery Factory was closed in August 1966 and the appellant
constituted and commenced business in the name,and style of Hindustan Hosiery
Industries with effect from 17th April, 1967, on which date another firm also
commenced business under the name and style of Hindustan Hosiery Mills. It
appears that all these three firms, namely, Stretchlon Private Ltd., the
appellant and the Hindustan Hosiery Mills are off shoots of the India Hosiery
Factory with a complement of 800 workmen which was actually the pioneer in the
The Sabha contended before the Tribunal that
the consolidated wages paid to the employees were extremely low.
According to the Sabha, the time-rated
workmen got as low a wage of Rs. 2.50 per day And never higher than Rs. 3.50
per day. The piece-rated workers, who, according to the Sabha, are skilled
workers, earned between Rs. 61and Rs. 71per day. The Sabha, therefore, claimed
I, revision of the wages of both the categories.
The appellant resisted the claim. According
to the appellant,, it is a new concern and has employed some of the workers of
the Hindustan Hosiery Factory. The average daily wages of the piece-rated jobs
vary from Rs. 6/to Rs. 10120 per day and are adequate. The work involved in the
jobs is not of highly skilled nature. The appellant further contended that the
company was only of two years standing and the wages paid by it are higher than
those earned by employees of other concerns in the industry. Its financial
position also cannot be assessed as it is hardly two year% old. The demands are
excessive and the appellant cannot bear the additional burden arising out of
305 The appellant has in its employment about
250 workers. The Tribunal had before it a statement (Ext. C-2) filed by the
appellant showing the number of employees receiving wages below Rs. 5/per day,
another statement (Ext. C-3) with regard to the other employees and also the
books filed by the appellant and observed that many of the piece-rated and
time-rated employees got as low a wage as Rs. 4.60 per day and Rs. 2.50 per
(fay respectively. It, therefore, held that "on the face of it the wages
provided for the workmen of the factory appear to be inadequate and low and
even in a loss-making concern such wages have to be raised". The appellant
started its business on 17th April, 1967. The Tribunal found from the
statement, Ext. U-1, filed by the Sabha regarding its financial position that
the appellant "earned substantial profits in the period of 8 months In
1967 and in 1968". The Tribunal found that during the period of 20 months
since April, 1967, the appellant has earned a profit of Rs.1,51,000/in eight
months of 1967 and Rs. 1,88,000/-in 1968. 'These profits are after deduction of
depreciation, interest and bonus. The Tribunal observed that the appellant having
a capital of Rs. 2,28,000/in 1967 and Rs. 3,42,000/in 1968 was prosperous and
its financial position was sound. The Tribunal also observed that "the
wages paid to the employees on the piece-rate and the timerate are very low and
require revision", The appellant wanted the Tribunal to follow the wage
scale of William Industries submitted by the appellant as per Ext.C.1. But the
Tribunal in the absence of any details with regard to the financial position of
that company or its profit making capacity, did not consider it appropriate to
consider that as a comparable unit. The Sabha, on the other hand, contended
that the appellant was more prosperous than Stretchlon Private Ltd. and
produced an award of the Industrial Court in the case of Stretchlon Private
dated 10th April, 1967, published in the
Maharashtra Gazette of 11th May, 1967. It appears that the demand for increase
of wages in the case of Stretchlon Private. Ltd. was made in 1966 within three
years of its functioning from 15th December, 1963, and before the Industrial
Court in that case profit and loss accounts for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65
were made available. It further appears that in the said award the, Industrial
Court took note of the position of three other smaller concerns, some of which
were even running at a loss and still were paying wages higher than the
Stretchlon Private Ltd. The Industrial Court, therefore, awarded Rs. 5/per day
"as a reasonable and fair minimum wage to the Stretch on employees of the
lowest category in the Consumers' Price Index bracket 621-630".
Although the Sabha in this case has asked for
different rates of basic wages for employees in five categories, the Tribunal
directed that the first 13 categories being the lowest paid workers should
receive Rs. 5/per day in the Index bracket 621-630. The next group serial Nos.
14 to 19 were given Rs. 5.50 per day in the same bracket, serial Nos.
20-21 were given Rs. 7/per day, serial No. 22
Rs. 7.50 per day and serial No. 23 Rs. 8.50 per day in the aforesaid bracket.
The Tribunal also granted for every rise of 10 points or part thereof, above
the index bracket 621-630, dearness allowance at the rate of 10 paise per day.
With regard to the claim for 306 50% rise in piece-rates, the Tribunal only
granted 30% in the Index bracket 621-630 and the same dearness allowance as
above. The Tribunal also granted the benefits retorspectively with effect from
1St February, 1969.
It is contended on behalf of the appellant
that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the difference between minimum wage and
fair wage. It is submitted that the Tribunal was in fact granting fair wage and
did not take into account the wellsettled relevant factors into consideration
in making the award. The appellant emphasises that the Tribunal absolutely
ignored the aspect of the capacity of the appellant to bear the burden of the
additional rise in wages on account of this award. The appellant also submitted
that the Tribunal ought not to have ignored the settlement with regard to wage
arrived at by the Hindustan Hosiery Mills with the Sabha. By that settlement,
the said partnership firm constituted by the other group of partners of
Hindustan Hosiery factory agreed with the Sabha to give an increase of Re. 1/per
day ill the wages of the workers getting Rs. 5/per day or less and an increase
of 50 paise per day in the wages of the workers getting more than Rs. 5/per
The appellant was prepared to allow this
increase which would have imposed an additional burden of Rs. 56,022/per year.
The respondent, on the other hand, submits
that the Tribunal has awarded only minimum wage. Even if it is assumed that the
wage awarded is a little higher than the minimum wage, it is certainly lower
than the lowest level of the fair wage. The learned counsel submits that in
order to allow the wage increase the Tribunal had before it materials from the
evidence furnished in the Stretchlon award as well as the trend of wage rates
with which the Tribunal must be expected to be familiar in the region and in
It is well settled that no industry can be
allowed to carry on its business if it is unable to pay the minimum wage to its
employees. The industry with which we are concerned is, however, not a
scheduled industry in which the State Government has fixed any minimum wage
under the Minimum Wages Act. The appellant submitted from certain Gazette
Notifications the minimum rates of wages prescribed by the State Government in
case of some eight different industries between the years 1969 and 1972 where the
monthly wages have been fixed between Rs. 90/and Rs. 128/per month. The
appellant submits that there is no justification whatsoever for allowing the
present increase of wages without following any principle and even higher than
the statutory minimum wage fixed in respect of other industries in the, State.
In the written statement filed before the
Court the Sabha stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows "5. The present
wages of both the piecerated and time rated workers are excessively low and are
much lower than those considered to be the absolute minimum payable by any
employer to his workers in the Bombay Region.
These wages are also much lower than those
paid by comparable concerns in the Industry.
6. The Second Party Concern is well in a position
to bear the additional burden that may be placed upon it by the revision of the
wages and the grant of dearness allowance as demanded by the Sabha".
The appellant, however, in para 5 of their
written statement before the Tribunal stated that it could not "bear the
additional burden which may arise on account of the revision of wages and D.A.
as demanded by the first party and submits that for awarding wages and also
D.A. it is not only the ability but also the stability of the concern which should
be considered by this Honourable Court". These being the rival contentions
of the parties before the Tribunal, it was required to consider whether it was
a case of bare minimum wage or something higher than it. From a perusal of the
award, we are clearly of opinion that the Tribunal was considering the case
from the point of view of. granting something higher than the subsistence or
bare minimum wage bordering on fair wage. We, have reached this conclusion
since the yardstick of the present award is the Stretchlon Award which was
obviously seeking to determine rather some kind of fair wage as will be clear
from the following extract from that Award :"It (the company) can,
therefore offer to pay higher minimum wages to lowest category of employees. On
due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances I find that Rs.
5/per day should be the, reasonable and fair minimum wage to the lowest
category of employees of the company".
Coming to the piece-rates also the Tribunal
did not give any specific reasons for awarding 30% increase as against the
demand of the Sabha for 50% rise in addition to Dearness Allowance. The
Tribunal, however, observed that "this increase would give adequate
average daily earnings to the piece-rated employees. This increase would bring
the emoluments near the level of minimum wage payable in the region and it
would not place a very heavy burden on the employer".
We will now consider the principles settled
by this Court in the matter of wage fixation.
In Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., and
Another v. The Union of India and Others(',), this Court was considering in an
exhaustive judgment, inter alia, the concept of minimum wage, fair wage and
living wage and approvingly quoted from page 9, para 10, of the Report of the Committee
on Fair Wages, to the following effect "We consider that a minimum wage
must provide not merely for the bare sustenance of life but for the
preservation of the efficiency of the worker. For this purpose, the minimum
wage must also provide for some measure of education, medical requirements and
This Court further observed :
"There is also a distinction between a
bare subsistence or minimum wage and a statutory minimum wage. The 308 former
is a wage which would be sufficient to cover the bare physical needs of a
worker and his family, that is a rate which has got to be paid to the worker
irrespective of the capacity of the industry to pay. If an industry is unable
to pay to its workmen atleast bare minimum wage it has no right to exist",
(See Messrs Crown Aluminium Works. v. Their Workmen(1).
It was further observed "The statutory
minimum wage however is the minimum which is prescribed by the statute and it
may be higher than the bare subsistence or minimum wage, providing for some measure
of education, medical requirements and amenities, as contemplated above While
the lower limit of the fair wage must obviously be the minimum wage, the upper
limit is equally,set by what may broadly be called the capacity of industry to
pay. This will depend not only on the present economic position of the industry
but on its future prospects It will be noticed that the "fair wage"
is thus a mean between the living wage and the minimum wage and even the
minimum wage contemplated above is something more than the bare minimum or subsistence
wage which would be sufficient to cover the bare physical needs of the worker
and his family, a wage, which would provide also for the preservation of the
efficiency of the worker and for some measure of education, medical
requirements and amenities This concept of minimum wage is in harmony with the
advance of thought in all civilised countries and approximates to the statutory
minimum wage which the State should strive to achieve having regard to the
Directive Principle of State Policy mentioned above".
It was further observed "It will also be
noticed that the content of the expression "minimum wage", 'fair
wage' and 'living wage' is not fixed and static. It varies and is bound to vary
from time to time.
With the growth and development of national
economy, living standards would improve and so would our notions about the
respective categories of wages expend and be more progressive".
In Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd. v. Their
Workmen(2), this Court observed as follows :"Fixation of a wage-structure
is always a delicate task because a balance has to be struck between the demand
of social justice which requires that the workmen should receive their proper
share of the national income which they help to produce with a view to
improving their standard of living, and the depletion which every increase in
wages makes in the profits as this tends to divert capital from industry into
other channels thought to be more profitable. The task (1) S.C,.R.651
quoted in  S.C.R.
(2)  2 S.C.R. 463, 467.
309 is not, rendered any the easier because
conditions vary from region to region, industry to industry and establishment
to establishment. To cope with these differences certain principles on which
wages are fixed have been stated from time to time by this Court. Broadly
speaking the first principle is that there is minimum wage which, in any event,
must be paid, irrespective of the extent of profits, the financial condition of
the establishment or the availability of workmen on lower wages. 'This minimum
wage is independent of the kind of industry and applies to all alike big or
small. It sets the lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to ,ink in
all humanity. The second principle is that wages must be fair, that is to say,
sufficiently high to provide a standard family with food, shelter, clothing,
medical care and education of children appropriate to the workman but not at a
rate exceeding his wage earning capacity in the class of establishment to which
he belongs. A fair wage is thus related to the earning capacity and the
workload. it must, however, be realised that 'fair wage' is not living wage' by
which is meant a wage which is sufficient to provide not only the essentials
above-mentioned but a fair measure of frugal comfort with an ability to provide
for old age and evil days. Fair wage lies between the minimum wage, which must
be paid in any event, and the living wage, which is the goal" In Hydro
(Engineers) (Private) Ltd. v. Their Workmen,(1) this Court observed as follows
"It is thus clear that the concept of
minimum wages does take in the factor of the prevailing cost of essential
commodities whenever such minimum wage is to be fixed.
The idea of fixing such wage in the light of
cost of living at a particular juncture of time and of neutralizing the rising
prices of essential commodities by linking up scales of minimum wages with the
cost of living index cannot, therefore, be said to be alien to the concept of a
In M/s. Jaydip Industries, Thana v. The
Workmen,(2) this Court referred to the observation in an earlier decision of
this Court in U. Unichoyi v. State of Kerala, (3) as follows "Sometimes
the minimum wage is described as a bare minimum wage in order to distinguish it
from the wage structure which is 'subsistence plus' or fair wage, but too much
emphasis on the adjective 'bare' in relation to the minimum wage is apt to lead
to the erroneous assumption that the maintenance wage is a wage which enables
the worker to cover his bare physical needs and keep himself just above
starvation. That clearly is not intended by the concept of minimum wage. On the
other hand, since the capacity of the employer to pay is treated as irrelevant,
it is but right (1) 1 L. L. J. 713,716.
(2)  1 L. L. J. 244, 247.
(3)  1 S. C. R. 957 quoted in  I.
L. L. J. 244, 247.
310 that no addition should be made to the
components f the minimum wage near the lower level of the fair wage, bout the
contents of this concept must ensure for the employee not only his sustenance
and that of his family but must also preserve his efficiency as a worker".
In M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. The
Workmen(1) the Court further observed as follows :"in the fixation of
wages and dearness allowance the legal position is well established that it has
to be done on an industry-cum-region basis having due regard to the financial
capacity of the unit under consideration........ industrial adjudication should
always take into account, when revising the wage structure and granting
dearness allowance, the problem of the additional burden to be imposed on the
employer and ascertain whether the employer can reasonably be called upon to
bear such burden...... As pointed out in Greaves Cotton and Co. and others v.
Their Workmen(2). One of the principles to be adopted in fixing wages and
dearness allowance is that the Tribunal should take into account the wage scale
and dearness allowance-prevailing in comparable concerns carrying on the same
industry in the region".
From an examination of the decisions of this
Court, it is clear that the floor level is the bare minimum wage or subsistence
wage. In fixing this wage, Industrial Tribunals will have to consider the
position from the point of view of the worker; the capacity of the employer to
pay such a wage being irrelevant. The fair wage also must take note of the
economic reality of the situation and the minimum needs of the worker having a
fair-sized family with an eye to the preservation of his efficiency as a
Wage fixation is an important subject in any
social welfare programme. Wage cannot be fixed in a vacuum and has necessarily
to take note of so many factors from real life a worker lives, or is reasonably
expected to live or to look forward to with hope and fervency in the entire
social context. It is obvious that some principles have to be evolved from the
conditions and circumstances of actual life.
Piece rate is what is paid of results or
outturn of work which is often described as a "task". There is
greater consideration to quantity in fixing piece rates in some particular
types of work in sonic industries with a guaranteed minimum. The same standard
may not be appropriate in all types of piece work. With reference to particular
work the importance of man rather than the machine employed may have to be
dealt with differently.
Even in piece rates it will be necessary to
look around to find some correlation with time rates of the same or similar
class of workers, for example the contribution of the worker to the job, the
nature of the work, the part (1)  L.L.J 576, 590, 591.
(2)  5 S. C. R. 362 quoted in  1
L. L. J. 576.
311 played by the machine, the incentive to
work and above all protection against any creation of industrial unrest because
of the existence side by side of two categories of workers, particularly if
there is no possibility of transfer of labour from one type of work to the
other from time to time, Again there may be sonic work where special skill of
the worker with or without machine may be necessary and that factor will have
to be then considered. It will vary from industry to industry and from the
process to another. No hard and fast rule can be laid down nor is it possible
or helpful. The Tribunal, in an industrial adjudication, will have to see that
piece-rates do not drive \workers to fatigue to the limit of exhaustion and
hence will keep an eye on the time factor in work. Then again a guaranteed
minimum may also have to be provided so that for no fault of a diligent worker
he does not stand to lose on any account.
There may be a misty penumbra which has got
to be pierced through upon all available materials on record and also on what
the Tribunal, in fairness. can lay its hands on, with notice to the parties,
for the purpose of fixing the Piecerates balancing all aspects. We have only
indicated broadly the bare outlines of approach in a matter so involved and
sensitive as wage fixation particularly when no one at the present time can
shut one's eyes to the rising spiril of prices of essential commodities. The
central figure in the adjudication, however. is the wage-earner who should have
a fair deal in the, bargainin a real sense as far as can be without at the same
time ignoring the vital interests of.
the industry whose viability and prosperity
are also the mainstay of labour. How the various competing claims; have to be
balanced in a given case should mainly be the function of in ippartial
adjudicator in an industrial proceeding unless the legislature chooses to adopt
other appropriate means and methods. Article 136 of the Constitution does not
create a right of appeal in favour of any Person. It confers power on the Court
which should not be so exercised as to convert the Court into a Court of
appeal. "Industrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self-contained one
and. it seeks to achieve special Justice on the basis of collective bargaining
conciliation, and arbitration. Awards are given on circumstances peculiar lo
each dispute and the tribunals are, to a large extent, free from the
restrictions of technical considerations imposed on courts. A free and liberal
exercise of the power under Article 136 may materially affect the fundamental
basis of such decisions, namely quick solution to such disputes to achieve
industrial peace. Though Article 136 is couched in widest terms, it is
necessary for this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction only in
cases, where awards are made in violation of the principles of natural justice,
causing substantial and grave injustice to Parties or raises an impotant
principle of industrial law requiring elucidation and final decision by this
Court or disclosures such other exceptional or special circumstance% which
merit the consideration of this Court". Per Subba '.Rao, J. in (Reneal
Chemical and Pharmaseutical Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen(1). None of the
arguments raised by the appellant should' be sufficient to persuade the Court
to interpose relief in its favour (1)  Supp. 2 S. C. R. 136 at 140.
312 on tile facts and circumstances of this
case. It is not quite Correct to say that the Industrial Court has not followed
the principles of wage-revision expounded by this Court. The Industrial Court has taken into account the prevailing minimum wage rates in the region, and
the capacity of the appellant to bear the burden of the increased wages.
Counsel for the appellant could not show to us that the wage rates fixed by the
Industrial Court are unfair for the appellant or that it cannot bear the load
of increased wages. The wages of the piece rated workmen had to be increased in
line with the increased wages of the time-rated workmen with the object of
avoiding discrimination and heart-burning among workers and maintenance of
industrial peace among them. Taking a comprehensive view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that no intervention is called for
with the award. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We will, however, make
no order as to costs in this ,appeal.
S. B. W. Appeal dismissed.