Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
ATIC INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
WORKMEN ETC. ETC.(With Connected appeals)
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/03/1972
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
DUA, I.D.
CITATION:
1972 AIR 1234 1972 SCR (3) 770
1972 SCC (2) 88
ACT:
Industrial Dispute--Transport Allowance Award of Tribunal
making employers liable to pay 15 paise per day to employees
who had to trevel more than five miles to place of
work--Award justified--Tribunal when may take into account
principles of social justice and region--cumindustry.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant companies carried on the business of
manufacturing chemical in a vilage. There were disputes
between the companies and their workmen. regarding dearness
allowance, transport allowance and other demands. In regard
to transport allowance the Tribunal in its award directed
the employers to pay 15 paise per day to workmen who lived
more than five miles away from the place of work except on
days when a workman was on leave. in doing so the Tribunal
took into account the fact that in the same region a
pbarmaceutical company was paying transport allowance to its
workmen. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the
companies that it was not the obligation of an employer to
provide transport facilities for the workmen or to pay in
whole or in part their transport expenses.
In appeal by special leave,
HELD : (i) The principle that in a proper case the
Industrial Tribu nal can impose new obligation on the
employer in the interest of social justice and can also
involve the parties in a new Contract has been accepted by
this Court. There can be no doubt that an Industrial Tribu-
nal has jurisdiction to make a proper and reasonable order
in an industrial dispute. [779 F; 780 D]
(ii) The Tribunal was justified in having regard to the
practice obtaining in the region on the principle of region-
cum industry when considering the claim of the workmen for
payment of transport allowance. The foundation of the
principle of region-cum-industry is that as far as possible
their should be uniformity of conditions of service in
comparable concerns in the industry in the region as that
there is no balance ,in the conditions of service between
workmen in one establishment and those in the rest. The
danger otherwise would be migration of labour to ’he one
where there are more favourable conditions from those where
conditions are less favourable. [780 B-C; 781 A-B]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
(iii) When the Tribunal was fixing the wage scales and
dearness allowance it was aware that it had also to
adjudicate on a claim for transport allowance. Having
regard to this claim it must have fixed the wage scales and
dearness allowance. In the scale of dearness allowance
fixed by the Tribunal complete neutralisation has not been
awarded. The Tribunal had also proceeded on the basis that
the workmen must bear, from and out of the wages earned by
them, a part of transport expenses. It was only when the
Tribunal found that the expense incurred by the workmen for
transport was rather high that it had afforded some relief.
771
No material had been placed before this Court on behalf of
the companies concerned to how that in the preparation of
the cost of living index in the area concerned transport
expense can be taken into account [781 D-F; 777 G]
(iv) In the circumstances of the case it could not be stated
that the award of the sum of 15 paise per day was in any
manner unreasonable or arbitrary. The payment had also
been hedged in by the condition that the employer had to be
satisfied that the workman was staying at a place five mile
and over from the pace of work and that it need not be paid
on days when the workman was either on earned leave or any
type of leave authorised or otherwise. The Tribunal had
also taken into account the financial capacity of the
appellants and there was ’no flow in its reasoning. [782 F;
783 A] .
Ahmedabad Mill Owners’ Association etc. v. The Textile
Labour Association, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 382; The Patna Electric
Supply Co. Ltd. Patna v. The Patna Electric Supply Workers
Union, [1959] Suppl. 2,
S.C.R. 761; Mohamed and Som v. Their Workmen, [1968] 1
L.L.J. 536, Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Workmen, [1969]
(19) F.L.R. 46 and The New Maneck Chowk Spinning and
Weaving Co. Ltd. Ahmedabad and others v. The Textile Labour
Association Ahmedabad, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 1, applied.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 15,
1967 of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat in Reference (I.T.)
No. 65 of 1966.
AND
CIVIL APPEAL No. 809 OF 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated October 16,
1967 of the, Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat in Reference
(I.T.) No. 60 of 1966.
AND
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2086 OF 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Awards Part I & II dated
September 27, 1967 and November 15, 1967 of the Industrial
Tribunal, Gujarat in Reference (I.T.) No. 65 of 1966,.
A. K. Sen, V. B. Patel, I. N. Shroff and M. N. Shroff for
the appellant, (in C.A. No. 742 of 196
M. C. Setalvad, V. B Patel and I,. N. Shroff for the
appellant (in C.A. No. 809 of 1968).
Madan G., Phadnis, Janardan Sharma and Indira jai Singh, for
the appellants (in C.A. No. 2086 of 1968) respondents (in
C.A.
772
No. 742 of 1968) and respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 809 of
1968).
M. C. Setalvad, V. B. Patel, I. N. Shroff,and M. N. Shroff,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 2086 of 1968).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J.-Civil Appeal Nos. 742 and 2086 of 1968, by
special leave, arise out of the decision regarding demand
No. 4 under Award Part 11, dated November 15, 1967 of the
Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, in Reference (IT) 65 of 1966.
As Atic Industries Ltd., and its workmen could not settle
the various demands made by the latter, on the joint
application of both, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Ahmedabad, by order dated February 19, 1966 referred for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, nine
demands made by the workmen. The demands cover various
matters and have been elaborately set out in the Schedule
annexed to the order of reference. It is enough to note
that the demands covered revision of wage scales, dearness
allowance, shift allowance, vacation traveling allowance,
housing facilities etc. Demand No. 4, with which we are
concerned was as follows :
"All workmen who make use of the, S.T. Bus
Service shall be paid Rs. 20/- per month as
Bus Allowance and those workmen who come
Cycling from places where S. T. Bus Service is
not available shall be paid Rs. 15/per month
as Cycle Allowance and also those workmen who
come by train shall be paid Rs. 10/- per month
as Train Allowance.
The Industrial Tribunal by its Award, Part 1, dated
September 27, 1967 disposed of demands Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and
9. By its Award, Part 11, dated November 15, 1967, the
Tribunal disposed of demand Nos. 4 5. 7 and 8. In respect of
demand No. 4, the Tribunal directed the Company (Atic
Industries Ltd.) to pay an allowance of 15 paise per day to
every employee who stays at a distance of five miles or more
from village Atul. The Tribunal directed this payment to be
made with effect from January 1, 1968. The Tribunal
’further directed that the allowance need not be paid for
days on which the workman is on earned leave or any type of
leave authorised or otherwise. Atic Industries Ltd. has
filed Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1968 challenging the grant of
this allowance to its workmen. The workmen have filed Civil
Appeal No. 2086 of, 1 968 challenging the various matters
covered by the Award Parts I and II, regarding wage scales,
dearness allowance in so far as the Award was against them.
In particular, regarding demand No. 4 they have claimed, in
the appeal,
773
that a higher allowance should have been granted by the
Tribunal. But this Court, by its order dated September 24,
1968 has restricted the Special Leave only to the question
of transport allowance. Therefore, the various other points
raised by the workmen in their appeal no longer survive.
While the Company in its appeal No. 742 of 1968 wants the
allowance granted under demand No. 4 to be set aside, the
workmen, on the other hand, in their appeal No. 2086 of 1968
require the allowance to be enhanced.
Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1968 is by special leave; and the
appellant therein is Atul Products Ltd., which also is an
industry located ill Atul village. Here again, on the joint
application of the said Company and its workmen, nine
demands were referred for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal, Gujarat, by or-der dated June 30, 1966 of the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad. The demands
related to dearness allowance, shift allowance, housing
facilities, vacation travelling allowance etc. Demand No. 6
with which we are concerned in this appeal was as follows :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
"Company shall provide free transport facility
to all workmen. Till such time free transport
is made available every workmen shall be paid
an allowance of Rs. 151/- per month."
The Industrial Tribunal, by its Award Part 1, disposed, of
demand Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. By its Award Part 11, dated
October 16, 1967, the Tribunal disposed of demand Nos. 5, 6,
8 and 9. The decision of the Tribunal under its Award Parts
1 and 11 in respect of demand Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 is,
not the subject of considcration before us. In respect of
demand No. 6, the Tribunal rejected the demand regarding the
Company being made to provide free transport facilities.
However, the Tribunal directed the Company to pay an
allowance of 15 paise Der day to every employee who stays at
a distance of five miles and above from village Atul. The
said payment was made effective from December 1, 1967. Here
again a direction was given that the Company need not Pay
allowance to its workmen who is either on earned leave or
any type of leave, authorised or otherwise.- The Company
desires in this appeal to have the direction given by the
Tribunal under this demand set aside.
From the facts stated above, it will be seen that the common
question that arises for consideration in all these three
anneals relates to the claim of the workmen for payment of
transport allowance to enable them to go from their place of
residence to the place of work. We may also state thatb
refrences in both the matters were made by the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad,
774
as such a power had been delegated to him by the State
Government under S. 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Both Atic Industries Ltd. and Atul Products Ltd., are public
limited companies. They manufacture dyes and chemical and
other intermediates. Both the companies were having their
factories in village Atul. The basis of the claim made by
the workmen of both these Companies for payment of transport
allowance and the defence raised by the two concerns were
substantially the same. In support of its demand the Union
had stated that the majority of the workmen employed in the
two Companies come from a distance’ of about five to ten
miles. As the, factories are not situated in a place where
labour force is available easily, the majority of the
workmen have to come from distant villages or the town of
Bulsar. There is no adequate transport reaching the site of
the factories. The State Road Transport Corporation runs
buses to reach the site of the factories, but the service is
not regular or adequate. A workman has to incur a bus fare
of 40 paise per trip from Bulsar to Atul and another 40
paise for the return journey. Therefore, each day a workman
had to incur 80 paise as bus fare in going to village Atul
from Bulsar and this was too much of an expense which could
not be borne by an employee from and out of his Wages.
In the case of Atul Products, the demand was for a uniform
allowance of Rs. 15/- per month, though in the case of Atic
Industries Ltd., the demand was slightly different. The
Union in, this connection relied on the Award in the case of
Cynamid India Ltd., which was a pharmaceutical industry in
Atul region.
Both the Companies opposed the demands of the workmen on the
ground that it is not the function or duty of an employer to
provide transport facilities for its workmen to come to
their place, of work. It was further pleaded that there is
a good road from Bulsar to village Atul and the State
Transport Service, which was running buses on the said route
was easily available to all the workmen both for coming to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
village Atul and also for going back home. In addition to
the bus service, there was also a train service which was
available to the workmen. The Companies further pleaded
that most of the workmen employed in the two Companies were
living in the nearby villages and they never depended upon
either the bus service or the train service. Even at the
time when the workmen took unemployment in the factories,
they should have known that they will have to go to their
place of work at their own expenses. On all these grounds
the claim of the workmen was resisted by both the Companies.
It is seen that in respect of Cynamid India Ltd., which was
in the same region, though in the pharmaceutical industry,
the
775
Tribunal had occasion to consider a claim made by its
workmen for free transport facilites or for payment of fixed
transport allowance at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. It
is further seen that Cynamid India Ltd., was already paying
15 paise per day for every wrokmen who was staying five
miles and more from village Atul. The workmen demanded that
whole of the transport expenses incurred by them, which was
of 80 paise per day, must be paid. This demand was
considered by the Tribunal in its Award published in State
Gazette on September 3, 190’6. In this award, a copy of
which has been placed before us, it is seen that the
Tribunal has rejected the claim of the workmen for directing
the Company concerned to provide free transport. But in
respect of the further claim for increasing the transport
allowance, the Tribunal has ultimately increased the
allowance from 15 paise to 37 paise per day to every
employee who was staying at a distance of five miles and-
more from village Atul. The Tribunal has also granted an
allowance of 12 paise per day to the workmen, of Cynamid
India Ltd., who were staying beyond three miles but less
than five miles.
As we have mentioned earlier, the claim for transport
allowance ance was made by the Union mainly on the basis of
the award of the Industrial Tribunal in the case of Cynamid
India Ltd. Though the, Tribunal did not grant the enhanced
allowance fixed by it inthe case of Cynamid India Ltd. and
also the further allowance granted therein to employees
staying beyond three miles but less than five miles, the
Tribunal in the case of Atic Industries Ltd. and Atul
Products Ltd. has awarded only a sum of 15 paise per day for
those workmen who were staying five miles and more from
village Atul.
In Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1968 Mr. M. C. Setalvad, 1earned
counsel for the appellant, apart from contesting the grant
of transport allowance to the employees on the ground that
it is not the function of an employer to provide transport
facilities or to pay allowance-for the same, has raised an
objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to give any
such direction.
We have already referred to demand No. 6, which is the.sub-
ject of consideration in this appeal. According to Mr.
Setalvad, the demand is to the effect that the Company
should provide free transport facilities to its workmen and
till such facility is provided the workmen should be paid an
allowance of Rs. 15/- per month. The counsel further
pointed out that in this case the Tribunal has rejected the
demand of the workmen for provision for free transport.
Once this claim was rejected on the ground that the employee
are not entitled to be provided free transport, no,, further
question arose for consideration before the Tripunal.
776
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
According to Mr. Setalvad the claim for payment of an
allowance of Rs. 15/- per month is only for the interim
period that will necessarily be taken by the Company to make
arrangements for providing free transport, if the claim in
that regard of the workmen had been accepted. The latter
part of the demand being only for an interim period, had to
be straightaway rejected when once the main demand providing
free transport made by the workmen was rejected. Therefore,
it is the contention of Mr. Setalvad that the Tribunal’s
direction regarding payment of allowance under demand No. 6
is without jurisdiction.
The above contention of Mr. Setalvad has been controverted
by Mr. Phadnis, learned counsel for the Union. According to
the learned counsel, the demand is really in the
alternative, namely, that the Company should be made to
provide free transport facility. If this is not feasible,
the Company should pay an allowance of Rs. 15/- per month.
The counsel has also drawn our attention to the reasons
given by the Tribunal in the case of Cynamid India Ltd. for
rejecting the claim for provision of free transport. The
Tribunal has itself referred to those reasons in the present
Award in respect of both the Companies. Therefore, even
though the claim for provision for free transport was
rejected, the Tribunal had to deal with the alternative
claim for payment of Rs. 15/- per month.
We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr.
Setalvad that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider
the quantum of transport allowance to be paid to the workmen
when once it has rejected the claim of ’he Union for
provision of free transport. The claim was a very tall one,
namely that the Company should provide free transport
facilities to all its workmen. The latter part of the
demand should-really be understood as an alternative claim
if free transport is not provided by the Company. If the
Company was willing to provide free transport facilities,
then there will be no question of any transport allowance
being paid to the workmen and the second part of the demand
may not arise for consderation. But it does not follow that
when the claim for free transport facilities is rejected,
the claim for transport allowance no longer survives. In
our opinion, the proper way of looking at the demand is to
treat the claim as one for provision of free transport
facility and in the alternative for payment of an allowance
of Rs. 15/- per month. The claim for payment of allowance
is not, as contended by Mr. Setalvad for an interim stage
covering the period taken by the Company to make
arrangements for providing transport facilities, when once
it has been directed to the ,so by the Tribunal.
777
The contention of Mr. Setalvad that the Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to give direction for paying transport
allowance after rejecting the claim of the Union for the
Company making provision for free transport, will have
considerable force, if the Tribunal had rejected the claim
for free-transport on the ground that the employer is not
under any circumstance liable to make any such arrangement
or bear transport expenses incurred by the workmen either in
whole or in part. As we will show presently the, ground on
which the Tribunal rejected the claim of the Union that the
employer should provide free transport was not on the ground
that the employer is under no circumstance liable to provide
the same, but because of the fact that a sound transport
system existedon the route and as such was conveniently
available to the workmen.
it Will be pertinent to note the reasons given by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
Tribunal in Cynamid India Ltd. for rejecting the claim of
the workmen in that concern for making provision for free
transport facilities. We are referring to this aspect
because the Tribunal in the case of Atul Products Ltd. has
rejected the claim for free transport on the same ground as
given by it in Cynamid India Ltd. The reason given by the
Tribunal is that there whould be justification for a Company
being made to provide free transport only if a sound public
transport sytem did not exist or was not conveniently avail-
able. The Tribunal has held that for going to village Atul
from Bulsar, public transport is available. It is on this
ground that the Tribunal held that it will not, be justified
in conceding the demand for free transport. It may be
mentioned that Cynamid India Ltd. was admittedly providing
free transport for its supervisory staff and for that
purpose it was maintaining a fleet of vehicles. But,
nevertheless, the Tribunal rejected the’claim of the workmen
therein for provision being made for free transport. It was
represented by Mr. Phadnis, learned counsel for the union,
that Atul Products Ltd. and Atic Industries Ltd. give a
special conveyance allowance to their supervisory staff.
But so far as this is concerned, the counsel also frankly
admitted that no material in this regard has been placed in
the record of these appeals. Hence we leave that aspect out
of consideration.
Now coming to the attack on behalf of the two Companies
regarding the grant of transport allowance, Mr. A. K. Sen
and Mr. V. B. Patel, who followed him, urged, that the
workmen when they took unemployment in the factories at
village Atul knew full well that they have to incur expenses
for going to their place of work. It was also pointed out
that the dearness allowance bad been revised by the Tribunal
by its award Part 1 and that is sufficient to enable the
workmen to meet the, transport char,-es that
778
they will have to incur for going to their Place of work.
In any event, it was urged, it is not the obligation of the
employer to provide transport facilites or to bear either
’in whole or in part the transport expenses of an employee
incurred by him for going to his place of work.
On the other hand, Mr. Phadnis, learned counsel for the
Union, pointed out that the Tribunal has not accepted the
entire claim made by the Union, nor has it granted transport
allowance at the same rate given by it in the case of
Cynamid India Ltd., The counsel pointed out that Atul
Products Ltd. and Atic Industries Ltd. and Cynamid India
Ltd. are all situated in village Atul. Atic Industries Ltd.
and Atul Products Ltd. are no doubt doing business in
manufacturing dyes, whereas Cynamid India Ltd. is a
pharmaceutical industry. The employees working in the same
region should have the same facilities and it is on this
principle that the Tribunal has awarded transport allowance
and that to a lesser degree than that prevailing in Cynamid’
India Ltd. The Tribunal itself has held that the workmen
must share a part of the expenses and it is on that ground
that though a workmen has to incur 80 paise per day, he has
been granted only 15 paise per day. According to the
learned counsel, the circumstances of the case ’also justify
the said grant.
We are of the opinion that the grant of 15 paise per day as
transport allowance to those employees staying five miles
and beyond is justified in the circumstances of this case.
The Tribunal itself has held that the Company must be
satisfied that the workmen come from a place Re Bulsar or
’places equally distant and no allowance need be paid on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
days when the workman is on earned leave or any type of
leave authorised or otherwise. On behalf of the Companies
it was stated that in calculating the cost of living index,
bus fare also is taken into account. No doubt in Ahmedabad
Mill Owners’ Association Etc. v. The Textile Labour
Association, (1) it is stated that in the preparation of the
cost of living index, various items including bus fare are
taken into account. But it is to be noted that the
observation in the said decision is that usually the items
mentioned ’herein including the bus fare are taken into
account. But Mr. Phadnis, pointed out by reference to the
book "Cost of Living Index Numbers in India" a Monograph,
published by the Labour Bureau, Ministry of labour,
Government of India that so far as Ahmedabad is concerned,
bus fare is not taken into account in the preparation of
cost of living index. In contrast, he referred is to the
Ranchi area where travelling expense is taken into account
in the preparation of cost of living index. No material has
been placed before us on behalf of the Companies concerned
to-show the in
(1) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 382.
779
the preparation of the cost of living index in the area
concerned transport expense is than into account.
The decisions in The Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd. Patna
v. The Patna electric Supply WorKers’ Union(1) and Mohammed
and Sons v. Their Workmen(-) were referred to us by Mr.
Patel wherein it has been held that providing of housing
accomodation is not the duty of an employer and that the
responsibility for the same is that of the Government. In.
our opinion, a claim for providing housing accommodation is
totally different from a claim made for transport allowance,
In fact in the presene awards/. the tribunal has rejected
the, claim of the workmen for housing facilities being
provided by both the Companies. Similarly, the decision in
Remington Rand of India Lid. v. Workmen(3) of this Court
regarding lunch allowance does not also assist the Companies
before us. It was held in the said ’decision that normally
when the wage structure is fair and dearness allowance is
paid to the workmen linked with the index of .Cost of
living, they must take care of the rise in the cost of
living from time to time and therefore a company cannot be
compelled to pay lunch allowance to all workmen. In that
decision, it will be noted, that the lunch, allowance was
being paid by the company concerned to workmen who had to go
to distant places and could not return to. the office,
during lunch period. But the rate of allowance to such
employees was raised by this Court no doubt by consent of
the Company. But the extension of that allowance to other
employees who had to work only in ’the factory or office
premises was rejected. In this connection it was observed
that the financial ability of an employer to bear the
additional burden is not criterion. The principle that in a
proper case the Industrial Tribunal can impose view
obligation on the employer in the interest of social justice
and can also involve the parties in a new contract has been
recognised by this Court in The Patna Electric Supply Co.,
Ltd. Patna v. The Patna Electric Supply, Workers’ Union(1),
and The New Maneck Chowk Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.
Ahmedabad and others v. The Textile Labour Associatioz,
Ahmedabad ( 4) No doubt the said jurisdiction of the
Tribunal is conditioned by the laws and judicial
pronouncements. In this connection the following, obser-
vation of Ludwig Teller in "Labour Disputes & Collective
Bargaining" (Volume 1, page 536) is apposite:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
"Industrial arbitration may involve the
extension of an existing agreement or the
making of a new one, or, in general, the
creation of new obligations or modification of
old ones while commercial arbitration
(2) [1968] IL.L.J. 536.
(1) [1959] Supl. 2 S.C.R. 761.
(3) [1969] (19) F.L.R. 46.
(4) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 1.
780
generally concerns itself with interpretation
of existing obligations and disputes relating
to existing agreements."
The above observations have been quoted with approval by
this Court in some of its earlier decisions. Therefore,
there can be no doubt that an Industrial Tribunal has
jurisdiction to make a proper and reasonable order in any
industrial dispute. It should be borne in mind that the
foundation of the principle of industrycum-region is that
as far as possible, there should be uniformity of conditions
of service in comparable concerns in the indusstry in the
region so that there is no imbalance in ,he conditions of a
service between workmen in one establishment and those in
the rest. The danger otherwise would be migration of labour
to the one where there are more favourable conditions from
those where conditions are less favourable.
It is pertinent to note that though this Court in Renington
Rand of India Ltd. v. Workmen(1) declined to extend the
benefit of lunch allowance to employees who had no occasion
to go for out door work, nevertheless it recognised in a
limited measure the obligation of an employer to provide
medical facilities for its workmen. The demand for
provision for medical facilities made by the workmen was
contested by the Company therein on the ground that making
provision for medical facilities is the responsibility of
the. Government and not of the employer. Even on the basis
that it is the obligation of the employer, it was further
contended that medical expenses which a workman would
ordinarily have to incur are looked after and taken into
account when fair wages are settled. This Court accepted as
correct the contention that the primary responsibility for
providing medical facilities for citizens is that of the
State. This Court also accepted the contention that while
fixing fair wages, medical expenses. which may have, to be
ordinarily incurred by a workman will be taken into
consideration. But on the basis that the expenses for
medical facilities would have been taken into account in the
fixation of wages only to a limited extent and as the State
cannot discharge its full responsibility in the matter of
providing medical facilities, this Court held that a
Tribunal will have jurisdiction in a proper case to call
upon an,employer to shoulder a part of the burden regarding
medical expenses incurred by his workman in the interest of
industrial harmony and good co-operative relations. We are
emphasising the said decision which recognised an employer
being made to shoulder a part of the burden in respect will
of medical expenses, as more or less the same principle
apply in the matter of an employer being asked to reimburse
the workman at least to a limited extent regarding the
transport expenses incurred by the latter for going to his
place of work.
(1) [1969] (19) F.L.R. 46.
781
We have already pointed out that in Atul village apart from
the two Companies there is another concern also. Though Cy-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
namid India Ltd. is in the pharmaceutical industry, in our
opinion, the Tribunal was justified in having regard to the
practice obtaining in that region on the principle of
region-cum-industry when considering the claim of the
workmen for payment of transport allowance. It is no doubt
true that in the case of Cynamid India Ltd. that Company was
already paying 15 paise per day to every one of its workmen
as transport allowance and that amount has been raised by
the Tribunal to 37 paise per day. It has also granted even
to Workmen living beyond three miles but less than five
miles a sum of 12 paise per day. But the very fact that
Cynamid India Ltd. was paying even originally 15 paise per
day was a relevant factor to be taken into account as the
said industry was also in the same region and most of its
employees were also coming from distant places like the
workmen in \the case of the two Companies before us. It
should also be remembered that the Tribunal, in the awards
in question,, was not considering an isolated claim for
payment of transport allowance. That demand was only one of
the demands, which was, being dealt with by the ’Tribunal
along with various other demands such as revision of wage
scales, dearness allowance etc. The Tribunal can certainly
be expected to be aware of the fact, when it was fixing the
wage scales and dearness allowance that it has also to
adjudicate on a claim for transport allowance. Having due
regard to this claim, it must have fixed the wage scales and
dearness allowance. We have gone through the scale of
dearness allowance fixed under the two awards and it is. to
be seen that complete neutralisation has not been awarded.
The Tribunal has also proceeded on the basis that the
workmen must bear, from and out of the wages earned by them,
a part of transport expenses. It is only when the Tribunal
found that the expense incurred by the workmen for transport
was rather, very high and excessive that it has afforded
some relief. If the entire, body of workmen come from
distant places and they all have to incur heavy expenses for
using transport, the question may pertinently arise whether
it is not a case for revision of wage scales or dearness
allowance in such a manner as to include\ also this item of
expense. The Companies have provided some accommodation in
the village itself for about 25 % of its workmen on a
nominal rent. Some other are living near about the village
itself and they have no necessity to spend any amount for
transport. In respect of these two categories of workmen.
there cannot be. a general rise in the wages paid to them. 0
, n the other hand, the case of workmen who come from
distant places, due to no fault of theirs, stands on a
different footing. It is not possible for them to cover the
entire distance walking and they have necessarily to use
some transport for -L1061Sup CI/72
782
coming to their place of work. Quite naturally, one can
expect the workmen to choose only that type of transport
which will cost them the minimum. Even if they choose the
train service, which will be compartively cheaper, they will
have to incur additional expense for coming to their place
of work and return home.
It must be noted that though the claim was for payment of 80
paise per day per worker to cover the entire cost of
transport to and fro, the Tribunal has awarded only a
moderate sum of 15 paise which was the amount that was being
paid by Cynamid India Ltd. originally. In the case of Atul
Products Ltd. as against the claim made for an allowance of
Rs. 15/- per month, for every workman, the Tribunal has
allowed only 15 paise per day and that too on the days when
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
the workman comes for duty. Similarly, in the case of Atic
Industries Ltd. the demands were : (a) Rs. 20/- per month to
be paid to every workman using State Transport Bus Service;
(b) Rs. 15/- per month to be paid to every workman coming by
cycle from places where State Transport Bus Service was not
available; and (c) The workmen who come by train should be
paid Rs. 10/- per month as train allowance. As against
these varying demands, the Tribunal has only allowed 15
paise per day and that too on the days’when them workman
comes for work. Thus it will be seen that even on the basis
that a workman staying at a distance of five miles or more
comes for work for 30 days in a month, the allowance he gets
is only a sum of Rs. 4.50 p under the Award.
In the circumstances mentioned above, it cannot be stated
that the award of the sum of 15 paise per day is in any
manner unreasonable or arbitrary. The payment has also been
hedged in by the condition that the employer has to be
satisfied that the workman is staying at a place five miles
and over from Atul village and that it need not be paid on
days when the workman is either on earned leave or any type
of leave authorised or otherwise. Therefore, we are
satisfied that the direction given by the Tribunal under
demand No. 4 in Civil Appeal No, 742 of 1968 and demand No.
6 in Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1968 is justified.
The Union in Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 1968 has asked for
enhanced rate of transport allowance being given to the
employee in Atic Industries Ltd. Its claim is that 80 paise
has to be paid to every workman per day or in the
alternative the allowance must be, as directed by the
Tribunal in Cynamid India Ltd. All these aspects have been
discussed by the Tribunal when it fixed the quantum in the
case of Atic Industries Ltd. Though the Tribunal cannot
impose any new obligation on an employer merely on the
ground that the financial capacity of the employer is sound,
nevertheless the Tribunal when imposing the new obligation
has also
783
to consider the capacity of the employer to bear the burden.
In the case of Atic Industries Ltd. the Tribunal has held
that it does not want to cast additional financial burden
and that is why it has fixed the allowance at a very reduced
scale. We see no error in this reasoning of the Tribunal
and as such Civil Appeal No. 2086 will have to be dismissed.
In the result, the Awards of the Industrial Tribunal in
respect of demand No. 4 in Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1968 and
demand No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1968 are confirmed
and both the appeals are dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 2086
of 1968 is also dismissed. Parties will bear their own
costs in all the appeals.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.,
784