Messrs. Crown Aluminium Works Vs.
Their Workmen [1957] INSC 86 (15 October 1957)
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
DAS, S.K.
CITATION: 1958 AIR 30 1958 SCR 651
ACT:
Industrial Dispute-Adjudication-Constitution
of wage structure-Revision of such structure, if can be made to the Prejudice
of workmen-Convention-Governing Principle.
HEADNOTE:
Although there can be no rigid and inexorable
convention that a wage structure once fixed can never be changed to the prejudice
of the workmen, there are well-recognised principles on which such revision
must be founded, one important principle, to which there can be no exception,
is that the wages of workmen cannot be allowed to fall below the bare
subsistence level. It follows, therefore, that no industry can have the right
to exist if it cannot be maintained except by bringing the wages below that
level.
The Constitution of India seeks to create a
democratic welfare state and secure social and economic justice to the citizens.
Growth of industries and the advent of collective bargaining between organised
labour and capital with consequent industrial legislation have made absolute
freedom of contract and the doctrine of laissez faire things of the past and
they have now to yield place to principles of social welfare and common good.
Industrial adjudication has, thus, to keep in
view the ideal of a democratic welfare state and its immediate objective in
constituting a wage structure must be to secure the genuine and wholehearted
co-operation between labour and capital in the task of production by a just
adjustment of their conflicting interests by 83 652 the application of several
principles such as for instance the principles of comparable wages, the
productivity of the trade or industry, cost of living and ability of the
industry to pay.
In a case where the wage structure is of a
higher category, it is open to the employer to claim its revision provided he
can satisfy the Tribunal that such revision is reasonable on the merits and
fair and just to the parties.
Where, however, the employer's financial
difficulties are sought to be made a ground for such revision, the Tribunal has
to decide whether such difficulties could or could not be adequately met by
such retrenchment in personnel as has already been effected by the employer and
sanctioned by the Tribunal.
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 took the 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.
Held further, 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.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 235 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated the 29th July, 1955, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India,
Calcutta, in Appeal No. Cal. 182 of 1953.
B. Sen, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for
the appellant.
N. C. Chatterjee, D. L. Sen Gupta and Dipak
Datta Chaudhury, for the respondent.
653 1957. October 15. The following Judgment
of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-ThiS appeal by special leave
arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant M/s. Crown Aluminium
Works, Belur, represented by Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., and its Workmen represented
by Bengal Aluminium Workers' Union. By their order dated July 31, 1952, the
Government of West Bengal referred thirteen matters for adjudication to Shri S.
K. Niyogi who was appointed to constitute the Sixth Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned
adjudicator considered the pleas raised, and the evidence led, by the parties
before him, investigated into the financial position of the appellant and
pronounced his award on October 9, 1953, on all matters referred to him.
Both parties were aggrieved by the award and
that led to two cross appeals. On July 11, 1955, the Labour Appellate Tribunal
disposed of these appeals by a consolidated order.
The workmen appear to be satisfied with this
order but the appellant is not and so the present appeal. The main grievance
which Mr. Sen has made before us on behalf of the appellant is in respect of
the revision made by the Appellate Tribunal in the wage structure which was
constituted by the original tribunal. Thus, the controversy between the parties
in the present appeal lies within a very narrow compass; nevertheless, it would
be necessary to mention the history of the dispute in some detail in order to
appreciate properly the points at issue between them.
It appears that in 1947, the first Omnibus
Engineering Tribunal was constituted to adjudicate upon the industrial disputes
for the engineering industry in West Bengal and the matters referred to the
tribunal included inter alia disputes in regard to basic wages, dearness
allowance and leave. This tribunal gave a comprehensive award which was
published on June 30, 1948. The appellant was a party to these adjudication
proceedings and was governed by the said award. Soon thereafter industrial
disputes again arose between the engineering industry and its employees and 654
these were referred to another tribunal which in due course examined the
disputes and pronounced its award. This award was published on September 21,
1950. By this award the dearness allowance fixed by the first tribunal was
increased on the ground of rise in the cost of living index and the leave rules
prescribed by the earlier award were modified in the light of the provisions of
the Indian Factories Act, 1948. After the first award had come into force the
appellant revised its facility bonus from time to time with the object of
keeping pace with the rise in the cost of living index. The result was that
several components which constituted the wage structure paid by the appellant
to his workmen left no cause for grievance to the workmen. So they did not
raise any dispute for increase in their dearness allowance and the appellant
and its workmen were not parties to the second arbitration proceedings.
Meanwhile, a minor industrial dispute arose between the appellant and its
workmen and it was referred to the arbitration of Shri G. Palit by the
Government of West Bengal by their order dated November 24, 1950. One of the
points referred to the Tribunal was in regard to the amount of increment which
should be granted to workers in 1950 and the date from which it should be so
granted. The appellant denied its liability to pay the increment on the ground
that there was no wage structure which permitted such a claim. The appellant
also urged before Shri Palit that its workers were on the whole handsomely
remunerated. In this connection reliance was placed by the appellant on the
payments made by the appellant to its workmen by way of special allowance and
bonus, besides dearness allowance and standard wages. It would thus appear that
the appellant resisted the claim of its workmen for the increment in wages on
the ground that in the wage structure of the appellant additional components
had been introduced which made ample provision for the rise in the cost of living.
Shri Palit was, however, not impressed with this plea. He thought that by
introducing these components in the wage structure the Managing Director
"chose to hold 655 the key in his own hands so that he can manipulate the
quantum of benefit under this head and could adjust it to the output in the
factory". Shri Palit, therefore, granted the workmen's demands by allowing
one anna per day increment though he frankly confessed that this was not based
on any actual calculation. He accordingly, directed the appellant to pay the
arrears within one month of the award coming into operation to all workmen who
were in the roll of the appellant at the end of 1950. Then Shri Palit addressed
a word of caution to the appellant and said that it was necessary that the appellant
should fix a wage structure as soon as practicable to secure durable peace in
the factory.
"It will be prudent", observed Shri
Palit in his award, " for the company to have a hide bound wage structure
instead of having so many flexible component parts of the wage which merely
will create unrest". This in brief is the previous history of the dispute.
between the appellant and its workmen.
On March 28, 1952, the appellant issued a
notice to its workmen proposing to make certain modifications. The notice
indicated that a reduction of the factory hours from 47 to 40 would be made,
the facility bonus would be reduced by 3 as. per day and temporary dearness
allowance for the salaried workers would be similarly reduced by 10% of the
then current rates. The appellant pleaded in this notice that these economy
measures had become necessary owing to the financial set-back of the appellant
and would come into effect on June 1, 1952. The Union opposed these changes. A
joint discussion was then arranged on June 2 and June 26, 1952. It appears that
further economy measures were introduced for discussion between the parties by
the notice dated May 30, 1952 These further economy measures related to the
reduction of the facility bonus by a further amount of 6 as. per day,
withdrawal of two hours' concession of special bonus and discharge of workers
of the rolling mills department. The Union did not agree to any of these
measures except the reduction of working hours from 47 to 42-1/2 hours a week.
Since joint consultations did not lead to any agreement the appellant b its
notice 656 dated June 27, 1952, intimated to the workers that the reduction of
working hours and in the facility bonus and dearness allowance as notified on
March 28, 1952, would be brought into operation from June 1, 1952. The workers
were also told that the two hours' concession would be withdrawn from July 1,
1952, and the workers in the rolling mills department would be discharged with
effect from August 1, 1952. The workmen resisted these proposals and took the
industrial dispute arising there from to the Labour Commissioner immediately.
Thereafter a joint conference of the appellant and its workmen was held on July
4, 1952. The intervention of the Labour Commissioner was not effective as the
proposals made by him to resolve the dispute between the parties amicably were
not acceptable to the parties. The appellant thereupon discharged the workmen
of the rolling mills department, 52 in number, with 14 days' notice pay and
retrenched other 227 workers of various categories as from July 26, 1952, with
a similar notice pay. The Government of West Bengal found that conciliation was
not possible and so the industrial dispute in question was referred to the
Sixth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
As we are concerned in the present appeal
only with the constitution of the wage structure and some questions incidental
thereto we will now refer to the decisions of the lower tribunals only in
respect of these matters. The Sixth Industrial Tribunal considered the
financial position of the appellant and revised and reconstituted the wage
structure and the dearness allowance in the light of the Omnibus Engineering
Awards in West Bengal published in 1948 and 1950. The tribunal hold that the
two hours concession, facility bonus and the food concession were in the nature
of bounty gratuitously paid by the appellant and as such they could be
withdrawn by the appellant at its pleasure. The tribunal also came to the
conclusion that since the wage structure had been revised and reconstituted
properly, the appellant should be given liberty to abolish the said three 657
concessional payments. It may be relevant to observe that the tribunal's
conclusion in regard to the character of the alleged concessional payments was
based principally on the view that in his award Shri Palit had held that these
payments were purely concessional payments and that the workmen had no right to
claim them as constituents of their wage structure.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal has not agreed
with this conclusion. The view that the Appellate Tribunal has taken is that
these so-called concessional payments have been enjoyed by the workmen for a
pretty long time as of right and as part of their basic wages and dearness
allowance and as such they have become a term of the conditions of their
service. Besides, the appellate tribunal has observed that it has been the
convention with industrial tribunals not to reduce the existing emoluments of
the workmen to their prejudice. In the result the wage structure constituted by
the tribunal was modified by the award of the appellate tribunal in respect of
existing workmen. The main conditions introduced by these modifications were
three:
" 1. The total basic wages of a
time-rated worker together with the two hours' concession immediately before
1-6-'52 shall hereinafter be called his existing basic wage.
2. The total of the temporary dearness
allowance and the facility bonus as was available to a worker prior to 1-6-'52
and the food concession wherever admissible to a worker under the rules of the
company shall hereinafter be called his existing dearness allowance, no matter
if any portion of these benefits has been curtailed or stopped in the meantime.
3. The two hours' concession, the facility
bonus and the food concession shall cease to have any separate existence
distinct from the basic wages and dearness allowance of the worker on and from
the date when this decision comes into force, hereinafter called the relevant
date." Both the original and the appellate tribunals have agreed in
providing that the existing basic wages and the existing existing emoluments
shall not be reduced.
358 For the appellant Mr. Sen has contended
that the Labour Appellate Tribunal was in error in assuming that it has been
the convention in industrial adjudications not to reduce the existing
emoluments of the workmen to their prejudice in any case. He contends that just
as the rise in the cost of living index or similar relevant factors may justify
the revision of the wage structure in favour of the workmen, so should the
revision of the wage structure be permissible in favour of the employer in case
the financial position of the employer has considerably deteriorated or other
relevant factors indicate such a revision. Indeed Mr. Sen made it clear during
the course of his arguments that in the present appeal he was more concerned to
challenge the validity of the assumption made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal
in that behalf, rather than the propriety or correctness of the actual modifications
made by the Appellate Tribunal in its award. The point thus raised by Mr. Sen
is no doubt of general importance and it must be considered in all its aspects.
Before dealing with this point, it would be
relevant to refer to the findings made by both the tribunals in regard to the
financial position of the appellant. The present unit of the aluminium industry
which was originally started by the Americans was taken over by the appellant
from the Americans on August 9, 1951. The main business of the appellant is to
manufacture household utensils from aluminum circles. These circles were
imported until the last war. During the war, import of these articles became
difficult and so a rolling mills department for manufacturing circles from
scrap materials was started. It is true that utensils made from such circles
were inferior in quality; but import difficulties were insurmountable and so
even these inferior utensils found a good market. As soon, however, as better
quality circles became available the demand for these utensils rapidly
decreased and the business began to incur loss. The management was thus
compelled to close down the rolling mills permanently in February, 1952.
As we have already mentioned, the workmen
employed 659 in the rolling mills were ultimately discharged on July 15,1952.
The appellant placed before the tribunals
below the relevant figures from the statements of accounts from 1947 to
September 1952. Both the tribunals have examined these figures and have come to
the conclusion that the economic position of the appellant on the whole was
none too bright.
Fall in the sale of utensils was noticeable
during these years and if the utensils were not disposed of in the market
quickly they are likely to lose their luster. and glaze and would be even
stained if they were to be stored in the godown for any length of time. This in
turn would involve extra expenditure and would contribute to further losses.
It appears to be the concurrent finding of
both the tribunals that the manufacturing cost in 1952, as in some preceding
years, exceeded the sale price and this undoubtedly would be a disquieting
feature in any industrial concern. The original tribunal did not see any
prospect of improvement in the appellant's financial position; whereas the
Appellate Tribunal was disposed to take the view that as a result of the
substantial retrenchment effected by the appellant " financial position of
the relevant unit of the aluminum industry appears to have improved ". It
is in the background of these findings that Mr. Sen has contended that the wage
structure constituted by the Appellate Tribunal would work a hardship on the
appellant and his grievance is that in reconstituting the wage structure the
Appellate Tribunal was very much influenced by the assumption that the wage
structure can never be revised to the prejudice of workmen.
In dealing with this question, it is
essential to bear in mind the main objectives which industrial adjudication in
a modern democratic welfare state inevitably keeps in view in fixing wage
structures. ".It is well known " observes Sir Frank Tillyard, "
that English Common Law still regards the wage bargain as a contract between an
individual employer and an individual worker, and that the general policy of the
law has been and is to leave to the two 84 560 contracting parties a general
liberty of bargaining, so long as there are no terms against public policy
" (1). In India as well as in England and other democratic welfare states
great inroad has been made on this view of the Common Law by labour welfare
legislation such as the Minimum Wages Act and the Industrial Disputes Act. With
the emergence of the concept of a welfare state, collective bargaining between
trade unions and capital has come into its own and has received statutory
recognition; the state is no longer content to play the part of a passive
onlooker in an industrial dispute. The old principle of the absolute freedom of
contract and the doctrine of laissez faire have yielded place to new principles
of social welfare and common good. Labour naturally looks upon the constitution
of wage structures as affording "a bulwark against the dangers of a
depression, safeguard against unfair methods of competition between employers
and a guarantee of wages necessary for the minimum requirements of employees
" (2). There can be no doubt that in fixing wage structures in different
industries, industrial adjudication attempts, gradually and by stages though it
may be, to attain the principal objective of a welfare state, to secure
"to all citizens justice, social and economic". To the attainment of
this ideal the Indian Constitution has given a place of pride and that is the
basis of the new guiding principles of social welfare and common good to which
we have just referred.
Though social and economic justice is the
ultimate ideal of industrial adjudication, its immediate objective in an
industrial dispute as to the wage structure is to settle the dispute by constituting
such a wage structure as would do justice to the interests of both labour and
capital, would establish harmony between them and lead to their genuine and
wholehearted co-operation in the task of production. It is obvious that
co-operation between capital and labour would lead to more production and that
naturally helps national economy and progress. In achieving this (1) "The
Worker and the State " by Sir Frank Tillyard, 3rd Ed, P. 37.
(2)" wage Hour Law" Coverage-By
Herman A. Wecht, p.2.
661 immediate objective, industrial
adjudication takes into account several principles such as, for instance, the
principle of comparable wages, productivity of the trade or industry, cost of
living and ability of the industry to pay.
The application of these and other relevant
principles leads to the constitution of different categories of wage
structures. These categories are' sometimes described as living wage, fair wage
and minimum wage. These terms, or their variants, the comfort or decency level,
the subsistence level and the poverty or the floor level, cannot and do not
mean the same thing in all countries nor even in different industries in the
same country. It is very difficult to define or even to describe accurately the
content of these different concepts. In the case of an expanding national
economy the contents of these expressions are also apt to expand and vary. What
may be a fair wage in a particular industry in one country may be a living wage
in the same industry in another country. Similarly, what may be a fair wage in.
a given industry today may cease to be fair and may border on the minimum wage
in future.
Industrial adjudication has naturally to
apply carefully the relevant principles of wage structure and decide every
industrial dispute so as to do justice to both labour and capital. In deciding
industrial disputes in regard to wage structure, one of the primary objectives
is and has to be the restoration of peace and goodwill in the industry itself
on a fair and just basis to be determined in the light of all relevant
considerations. There is, however, one principle which admits of no exceptions.
No industry has a right to exist unless it is able to pay its workmen at least
a bare minimum wage. It is quite likely that in underdeveloped countries, where
unemployment prevails on a very large scale, unorganised labour may be
available on starvation wages; but the employment of labour on starvation wages
cannot be encouraged or favored in a modern democratic welfare state. If an
employer cannot maintain his enterprise without cutting down the wages of his
employees below even a bare subsistence or minimum wage, he would have no right
to conduct his enterprise on such terms.
662 In considering the pros and cons of the
argument urged before us by Mr. Sen, this position-must be borne in mind.
The question posed before us by Mr. Sen is:
Can the wage structure fixed in a given industry be never revised to the
prejudice of its workmen? Considered as a general question in the abstract it
must be answered in favour of Mr. Sen. We do not think it would be correct to
Bay that in no conceivable circumstances can the wage structure be revised to
the prejudice of workmen, When we make this observation, we must add that even
theoretically no wage structure can or should be revised to the prejudice of
workmen if the structure in question falls in the category of the bare
subsistence or the minimum wage. If the wage structure in question falls in a
higher category, then it would be open to the employer to claim its revision
even to the prejudice of the workmen provided a case for such revision is made
out on the merits to the satisfaction of the tribunal. In dealing with a claim
for such revision, the tribunal may have to consider., as in the present case
whether the employer's financial difficulties could not be adequately met by
retrenchment in personnel already effected by the employer and sanctioned by
the tribunal. The tribunal may also enquire whether the financial difficulties
facing the employer are likely to be of a short duration or are going to face
the employer for a fairly long time. It is not necessary, and would indeed be
very difficult, to state exhaustively all considerations which may be relevant
in a given case. It would, however, be enough to observe that, after
considering all the relevant facts, if the tribunal is satisfied that a case
for reduction in the wage structure has been established then it would be open
to the tribunal to accede to the request of the employer to make appropriate reduction
in the wage structure, subject to such conditions as to time or otherwise that
the tribunal may deem fit or expedient to impose. The tribunal must also keep
in mind some important practical considerations. Substantial reduction in the
was structure is likely to lead to discontent among 663 workmen and may result
in disharmony between the employer and his employees; and that would never be
for the benefit of the industry as a whole. On the other hand, in assessing the
value or importance o possible discontent amongst workmen resulting from the
reduction of wages, industrial tribunals will also have to take into account
the fact that if any industry is burdened with a wage structure beyond its
financial capacity, its very existence may be in jeopardy and that would
ultimately lead to unemployment. It is thus clear that in all such cases all
relevant considerations have to be carefully weighed and an attempt has to be
made in each case to reach a conclusion which would be reasonable on the merits
and would be fair and just to both the parties. It would be interesting to
notice in this connection that all the tribunals that have dealt with the
present dispute have consistently directed that existing wages should not be
reduced to the prejudice of the workmen.
In other words, though each tribunal
attempted to constitute a wage structure in the light of materials furnished to
it, a saving clause has been added every time protecting the interests of such
workmen as were drawing higher wages before. Even so, it would not be right to
hold that there is a rigid and inexorable convention that the wage structure
once fixed by industrial tribunals can never be changed to the prejudice of
workmen. In our opinion, therefore, the point raised by Mr. Sen must be answered
in his favour subject to such relevant considerations and limitations as we
have briefly indicated.
Mr. Sen is, however, not right in contending
that the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal is based solely or even
chiefly on the alleged convention to which the Appellate Tribunal has referred.
As we have already pointed out, the tribunal has also found that substantial
retrenchment which has been sanctioned by both the tribunals would improve the
financial position of the appellant. In the opinion of the Appellate Tribunal,
the downward tendency in the cost of living index on which the appellant partly
relied could not be considered in the present proceedings since no 664 specific
issue had been referred to the tribunal in that behalf. Besides, enough
material had not been produced to show to what extent the cost of living index
had fallen and whether this fall was temporary or had come to stay. The
Appellate Tribunal, it appears, thought that the wages paid by the appellant to
its workmen "are the irreducible minimum or may at-best be in the region
of fair wages with a small margin over the minimum wage." If, in reaching
its final conclusions, the Appellate Tribunal has relied not only upon the
alleged convention but also upon the other circumstances just mentioned, it
would not be fair to say that its conclusion is vitiated in law or is otherwise
unsound.
Normally, this court would be slow to
entertain an objection that some of the considerations which have weighed with
the Appellate Tribunal in reaching its final decision are either invalid or are
not borne out by sufficient evidence on record.
There is another point which Mr. Sen has
raised before us in regard to the true character of the concessional payments
made by the appellant to its work. men and which have been incorporated by the
Appellate Tribunal in the wage structure. The Appellate Tribunal has taken the
view that these concessional payments really amounted to payments made to the
workmen as a matter of right and it is the correctness of this conclusion that
is challenged before us by Mr. Sen. Let us then consider the genesis of these
payments. Prior to the new Factories Act, the appellant's workmen worked on an
average for 59 hours of work made up of the usual 54 hours of work and
overtime. After the Factories Act came into force, the working hours had to be
reduced but in order to compensate the time. rate workers for reduction in
their wages, the management added to the daily earnings of such workers the
wages for two hours. The additional two hours' wages thus awarded to the
workers came to be known as two hours' concession or special bonus. This bonus was
introduced in August, 1946. In April, 1945, facility bonus had been introduced
at 3 as. per day for workers getting basic wages equal to or less than 10 as.
per day and 4 as. per day for workers whose basic wages were 665 over 10 as.
per day.. It appears that this facility bonus was revised from time to time in
the upward direction, and it used to be paid prior to June 1952 at a graduated
scale linked to the basic wages in slabs' varying from 6 as. to 12 as. per day.
Besides, the appellant introduced food concession to workers employed prior to
1951. Thus the constitution of the wage structure in the appellant's concern
included dearness allowance, facility bonus and food concession. In dealing
with the true nature of these payments it is necessary to take into account the
appellant's case as deposed to by the appellant's Labour Officer and Assistant
to the Manager, Shri Jaisuklal Shah.
According to Shri Shah, the facility bonus
was an additional allowance for the high cost of living very much on the same
footing as dearness allowance. " Two hours' allowance", said Shri
Shah, " is referred to as special bonus or extra bonus. It was paid
because the workers demanded and it was possible to pay it at that time ".
These statements lend considerable support to the workmen's case that the
payments in question constituted a part of the wage structure of the appellant.
Indeed, even in the statement of the appellant before the industrial tribunal
in the present proceedings, it is specifically averred in paragraph 2 that
prior to June, 1952, the company's pay structure consisted of five items, viz.,
(1) basic wage, (2) dearness allowance, (3) special bonus or extra bonus, (4)
facility bonus or special allowance, and (5) food concession. The attitude
adopted by the appellant before Shri Palit is also consistent with this
pleading and with the evidence given by Shri Shah in the present proceedings.
Before Shri Palit, the appellant had urged that there was no occasion to grant
increment to its workmen because under the categories of several allowances the
company had substantially constituted its wage structure to the benefit of the
workmen. In this connection, it would also be material to point out that it was
because these additional payments were made by the appellant to its workmen
that the workmen did not raise any dispute and did not join the arbitration
before the Second Engineering Tribunal. Besides, 666 that also is a relevant
factor to consider in dealing with the true character of these payments. If the
Labour Appellate Tribunal took into account all these facts and held that the
payments in question are not matters of bounty but that, in essence and in
substance, they form part of the basic wage and dearness allowance payable to
the workmen, we see no reason to interfere with its conclusion. It is not
disputed before us that if this conclusion is right, the Labour Appellate
Tribunal has properly revised the wage structure as constituted by the original
tribunal and included the payments in question in appropriate categories.
There is one more point which may be
mentioned before we part with this case. Mr. Sen incidentally argued that the
result of the award passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal is that there will
be two scales of wage structure, one for those who are already in the
employment of the appellant and the other for the new entrants. Since we have
held that the modifications made by the Appellate Tribunal in favour of the
existing workmen cannot be successfully challenged by the appellant, we do not
think it necessary to consider whether wage structure which has been fixed by
the Appellate Tribunal in regard to new entrants into the service of the
appellant is justified or not.
The result is that both the contentions
raised by Mr. Sen substantially fail. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed
with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
