Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
HINDUSTAN HOSIERY INDUSTRIES
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
F. H. LALA AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/02/1974
BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
DWIVEDI, S.N.
CITATION:
1974 AIR 526
ACT:
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.
HEADNOTE:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
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 industry.
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 [1959] S.C.R. 12, Messers. Crown Aluminum
Works v. Their Workmen [1958] S.C.-R. 651 quoted in [1953]
S.C.R. 12, Kamani Metals and Alloys Ltd. v. Their Workmen
[1967] 2 S.C.R. 463/467 Hydro Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Their
Workmen [1969] 1 I.L.J. 713/716 M/s Jaydip Industries, Thane
v, The Workmen [1972] 1 L.L.J. 244/247 V. Unichoyi v. State
of Kerala [1962] 1 S.C.R. 957, quoted in [1972] 1 L.L.J.
244/247 and MIS Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. The Workmen
[1972] 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 piece-
rates 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
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, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 136, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
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 respon-
dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
GOSWAMI, 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 29th January,.
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 pio-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
neer in the industry.
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. 61- and Rs. 71- per
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 these demands.
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 Ltd.
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
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 well-
settled 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 day.
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 the industry.
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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
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 piece-
rated 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.
307
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 some thing 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
worker. For this purpose, the minimum wage
must also provide for some measure of educa-
tion, medical requirements and amenities".
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 sub-
sistence 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 prog-
ressive".
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
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)[1958] S.C,.R.651 quoted in [1959] S.C.R.
12.
(2) [1958] 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 minimum wage".
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 mini-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
mum 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) [1972] 1 L. L. J. 244, 247.
(3) [1962] 1 S. C. R. 957 quoted in [1972]
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 worker.
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
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) [1972] L.L.J 576, 590, 591.
(2) [1964] 5 S. C. R. 362 quoted in [1972] 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 Piece-
rates 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, freefrom the restrictions of
technical considerations imposed on courts. A free and
liberal exercise of the power under Article 136 may mate-
rially 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
(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) [1959] 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 in,creased 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.
313