Case: Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company, Limited Vs. Its Workmen

Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal by special leave is from an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, in a dispute between the appellants, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company, and its workmen. Of the several matters that were referred to this tribunal for adjudication we are concerned in this appeal with only four in which the award is in favour of the workmen. These four were in these terms :"(1) Whether the existing practice of making deductions from the piece-rated earnings in case of a weaver attending to a pair of Turkish looms or to a pair of looms of Turkish towel and plaint sort each in B mill weaving should be given up or modified ? What other directions are necessary in this respect ?(2) Whether power plant operatives on running duty are entitled to any extra remuneration for having to forego half-hour rest interval admissible to other operatives in the mills ? If so, what should be the quantum of such remuneration ?(3) Whether operatives designated as doffer helpers attached to the doubling frame tenters should be redesignated as helpers having regard to the nature of their duties, and whether the time-rated wages of Rs. 30 per month applicable to this category require to be raised ? If so, to what extent and from which date ?(4) Whether the Bombay scheme of standardized wage-rates in case of creelers working on plain and high-speed warping machines has not been implemented ? If so, to what relief are the operatives concerned entitled and from which date ?"2. The appellant is a public limited company having amongst its various industrial undertakings a group of textile mills known as Delhi Cloth Mills, A, B and C. The first of these disputes is concerned only with the B mill. Prior to 1930 only plain cloth was manufactured in this mill. Two plain looms were the normal assignment of each weaver for making such cloth. In 1930 the appellants began to manufacture Turkish towel also in the B mill on some of the plain looms by equipping these looms with the necessary equipment for such manufacture. The normal assignment of each weaver in making Turkish towel was however one such loom. The piece-rates for Turkish towel looms were fixed at a higher figure than those for ordinary looms. No dispute arose about the wages of these weavers up to the year 1956. In that year the management started allotting two Turkish towel looms to some weavers and to some one Turkish towel loom and one plain loom. When this was started, the management stopped paying the workmen in full according to the old piece-rates but started making certain deductions. Twelve and a half percent of the piece-rate earnings was deducted in the case of weavers attending to two Turkish towel looms and one ordinary in the case of weavers attending on one Turkish Towel loom and one ordinary loom. The appellants case is that they were entitled to make these deductions under the Bombay scheme of standardized wage-rates which had been accepted by an agreement between the appellants and their workmen in February 1949 with regard to standardization of wages in all occupations. The scheme, it has to be mentioned, proceeds on the basis that two looms are the normal assignment of one weaver, but provides that when three or four or six looms were assigned to any weaver, the piece-rates should be reduced; the reduction would be one-sixth when the assignment was of three looms; one-fourth when the assignment was of four looms and one-third when the assignment was of six looms. No provision in terms was made in this scheme for Turkish Towel looms. The appellants case, however, is that as the normal assignment for Turkish Towel looms in one loom per weaver the Bombay scheme is in terms applicable to weavers working on Turkish Towel loom on the equation that one Turkish Towel loom is equal to two ordinary looms. On that basis, the appellants argue, a weaver working on two Turkish Towel looms should be deemed to be working on four ordinary looms for the application of the scheme and his rates are liable to deduction by one-fourth, i.e., 25 percent instead of 12 percent reduction which the management has in fact applied. On the same assumption, the appellants case proceeds that the weaver on one Turkish Towel loom and one ordinary loom should be deemed to be working on three ordinary looms and that his rates are accordingly liable to a reduction by one-sixth instead of the one-tenth they have applied.The tribunal held that there is no justification for the application of Bombay scheme to Turkish Towel looms and accordingly held that the existing practice of making deductions in case of a weaver attending on Turkish Towel looms is unjust and unwarranted and that the management should pay back to all weavers from whose earnings such deductions have been made with effect from the date of reference.3. The main attempt of Mr. Sastri in challenging the correctness of this decision was to convince us that the Bombay scheme applies to Turkish Towel looms on the basis of one Turkish Towel loom being equated to two ordinary looms. He could however point out nothing in the words of the Bombay scheme which even remotely justifies such a conclusion. If one were to think that the Bombay scheme applied to all looms, including Turkish Towel looms, the proper conclusion would be that the reductions in the piece-rates provided in Para. 7 of the scheme would come into operation only when three or more Turkish Towel looms were being assigned to a single weaver. As yet there has been no assignment of three or more Turkish Towel looms to any single weaver, and it is unnecessary to consider such a hypothetical position. It seems to us however that as the Bombay scheme proceeds on the basis that the two looms are the normal assignment of one weaver, it can have no application to such looms of which the normal assignment is different. We can see no justification for introducing into the scheme a deeming provision that a person working on one Turkish Towel loom should be deemed to be working on two ordinary looms or that a person working on one Turkish Towel loom and one ordinary loom should be deemed to be working on three ordinary looms or that a person working on two Turkish Towel looms should be deemed to be working on four ordinary looms. There is no scope in law or commonsense for the introduction of such a deeming provision into the Bombay scheme.Mr. Sastri then contended that even if the Bombay scheme is not directly applicable, the principle underlying the same should be applied. That principle, according to Mr. Sastri, is that when due to improvements in machinery and rationalization introduced by the management in the process of manufacture it becomes possible for workmen to attend more looms than was formerly possible for workmen to attend more looms than was formerly possible, the piece-rates may reasonably be reduced. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the management to show that the introduction of Barb Coleman machines, new sizing machines and Supercot bobbins in 1955-56 made it possible for workmen to look after two Turkish Towel looms while formerly they could look after only one. The managements witness, however, admits that the introduction of these improvements has increased the efficiency of not only the Turkish Towel looms but also of plain looms. It is not however the managements case that the piece-rates for the weavers of the ordinary looms have been reduced because of the introduction of such improvements. It is not possible for us, therefore, to accept Mr. Sastris contention that the piece-rates for Turkish Towel looms are liable to deduction because improvements have been introduced by the management. Incidentally, we may point out that if as a result of improvements made in the machinery the workmen are able to attend to more looms and then produce a larger number of towels, that can hardly justify any deduction in their wages when the wages are fixed on a piece-rate basis. It is the very essence of piece-rate wages that the more the production by the workman, the proportionately larger would be his wages, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in that behalf.It is faintly argued by Mr. Sastri on the basis of a recommendation in Para. 1 of the Wage Board which has been accepted by the Government that for a period of five years from 1 January, 1960 no scheme for further revision of minimum wages should be made by either the management or the workmen. Mr. Sastri was constrained to concede, however, that this recommendation cannot in any way affect the present award made in a reference made on 24 November, 1955. We find no justification, therefore, for interfering with the tribunals award on this question of deduction from the piece-rated earnings for weavers working on Turkish Towel looms.4. Nor can we find anything that would justify us in interfering with the tribunals finding on the third matter set out above that there is no justification for paying doffer helpers only Rs. 30, that the categories known as doffer helpers in the doubling department are really helpers to machinemen, that they are not helpers to doffers, that they do the same type of duties as helpers to spinners in the ringframe department and that this category of doffer helpers should be paid Rs. 41-6-0 per month. Mr. Sastri contended that in fact these persons were appointed as helpers to doffers and if they did some other work in some other department, that was only to acquire experience for themselves with a view to ultimate promotion and not with the knowledge or consent of the management. This case that the persons named as doffer helpers might be doing some other work without the knowledge or consent of the management was not pleaded in the managements written statement. On a consideration of the evidence the tribunal has come to a definite finding that in fact the doffers do not need any helpers and the work which is actually done by these persons designated as doffer helpers (sic) are really working as helpers to machinemen in the doubling department. There is nothing to justify us in interfering with the findings based on evidence given before the tribunal.It is difficult to see, however, how in the other two matters the tribunal made an award in favour of the workmen. The claim for extra remuneration for having to forego half-hours rest intervals appears to be in substance a claim for the overtime payment. The tribunal has made a rather startling statement that these workmen are working continuously for 8 1/2 hours in a day. As there are only 24 hours in the day and night and there are three shifts working, it is obvious that none of the shifts work for more than 8 hours. The managements case is that the wages of these workmen are fixed having due regard to this fact that in view of the nature of their work they would be working for 8 hours at a stretch without the half-hours rest interval admissible to other workmen. This appears to us to be extremely likely, and no evidence has been given on the side of the workmen to show that the wages were fixed on the basis that these workmen would have this half-hours rest interval.5. It may be mentioned that rules were framed by Government exempting the management from the operation of the legal provisions of the Factories Act that such rest must be given. At the hearing before us it was sought to be argued on behalf of the respondents that no such exemption was in force at the time of the award. It has to be mentioned however that in the statement of claim on behalf of the workmen it was definitely stated that"the management has obtained exemption from the Inspector of Factories under S.64(2) of the Factories Act, to be allowed to run the department without giving them half-hours rest interval."6. The case that no such exemption was in force at the time of the award cannot therefore be allowed to be raised now. We are therefore of opinion that the power plant operatives are not entitled to any extra remuneration for having to forego half-hours rest interval.The dispute as regards creelers is whether the Bombay scheme of standardized wage rates has been implemented in respect of such creelers working on plain and high-speed warping machines. There appears to be no dispute that the wage-rates of the Bombay scheme as it was in force at the time of the agreement between the management and the workmen in 1949 is being implemented. The workmens case appears to be that when the time-rates of these creelers were revised in Bombay with effect from November 1955 the appellants were also bound to apply the revised rates to the creelers working in their Mills. The decision of this question depends on the terms of the agreement. All that we find stated in the agreement regarding this is in these terms :"With regard to the standardization of wages in all occupations, the Bombay standardization scheme is accepted in toto."7. Without anything more the agreement must therefore be held to be for the acceptance of the Bombay standardization scheme as it stood on the date of the agreement, viz., 27 February, 1949. It was sought to be argued on behalf of the workmen that the intention of the parties was that effect would also be given to any change that might take place after the date of the agreement. We are unable to find any force in this contention. The tribunal has supported its conclusion that the creelers would be entitled to the revised rates in the Bombay scheme from one paragraph in the compromise award between the parties dated 19 July, 1956. This paragraph runs thus :"Notwithstanding that the management had accepted in toto only the wage-rates prescribed under Bombay Standardization of Wages award and had not undertaken to endorse the wage-rates from the dates from which they were enforced at Bombay (being not party to that award), the management agrees, in order to provide goodwill and cordial labour-management relations, to enforce, as a special case, the wage-rates with effect from January 1951 in respect of workers employed in the engineering (machine and electric department). This however will not form a precedent for future or give a right to the workers for claiming the enforcement of the entire Bombay Standardization of Wages award or any subsequent or supplimentary awards relating to the textile industry of Bombay with effect from the date from which they are, have been, or may hereafter be enforce at Bombay."We are unable to see anything in the words of the compromise that would justify the conclusion that the management agreed that revised wage-rates would be applied to their workmen in all categories as in the Bombay scheme. The mere fact that in one particular case the management agreed as a matter of compromise to apply revised wage-rates of the Bombay scheme does not justify such a conclusion. On the contrary, the fact that this agreement to apply revised wage-rates in respect of certain workmen was specifically mentioned to be "a special case" clearly proceeds on the basis that the original agreement was to apply the Bombay scheme as it stood on the date of the agreement. It may be that in the case mentioned in the compromise award of 19 July, 1956 and in some other cases the appellants have applied the revised Bombay scheme; that would not give the workmen in other departments also a right in law to the revised rates of the Bombay scheme. The tribunals conclusion that the Bombay scheme as agreed to was not being implemented as regards the creelers cannot therefore be sustained."

Decision:
1[ds]It seems to us however that as the Bombay scheme proceeds on the basis that the two looms are the normal assignment of one weaver, it can have no application to such looms of which the normal assignment is different. We can see no justification for introducing into the scheme a deeming provision that a person working on one Turkish Towel loom should be deemed to be working on two ordinary looms or that a person working on one Turkish Towel loom and one ordinary loom should be deemed to be working on three ordinary looms or that a person working on two Turkish Towel looms should be deemed to be working on four ordinary looms. There is no scope in law or commonsense for the introduction of such a deeming provision into the Bombayis not possible for us, therefore, to accept Mr. Sastris contention that thefor Turkish Towel looms are liable to deduction because improvements have been introduced by the management. Incidentally, we may point out that if as a result of improvements made in the machinery the workmen are able to attend to more looms and then produce a larger number of towels, that can hardly justify any deduction in their wages when the wages are fixed on abasis. It is the very essence ofwages that the more the production by the workman, the proportionately larger would be his wages, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in thatis faintly argued by Mr. Sastri on the basis of a recommendation in Para. 1 of the Wage Board which has been accepted by the Government that for a period of five years from 1 January, 1960 no scheme for further revision of minimum wages should be made by either the management or the workmen. Mr. Sastri was constrained to concede, however, that this recommendation cannot in any way affect the present award made in a reference made on 24 November, 1955. We find no justification, therefore, for interfering with the tribunals award on this question of deduction from theearnings for weavers working on Turkish Towelis nothing to justify us in interfering with the findings based on evidence given before the tribunal.It is difficult to see, however, how in the other two matters the tribunal made an award in favour of the workmen. The claim for extra remuneration for having to foregorest intervals appears to be in substance a claim for the overtime payment. The tribunal has made a rather startling statement that these workmen are working continuously for 8 1/2 hours in a day. As there are only 24 hours in the day and night and there are three shifts working, it is obvious that none of the shifts work for more than 8 hours. The managements case is that the wages of these workmen are fixed having due regard to this fact that in view of the nature of their work they would be working for 8 hours at a stretch without therest interval admissible to other workmen. This appears to us to be extremely likely, and no evidence has been given on the side of the workmen to show that the wages were fixed on the basis that these workmen would have this6. The case that no such exemption was in force at the time of the award cannot therefore be allowed to be raised now. We are therefore of opinion that the power plant operatives are not entitled to any extra remuneration for having to foregorest interval.The dispute as regards creelers is whether the Bombay scheme of standardized wage rates has been implemented in respect of such creelers working on plain andwarping machines. There appears to be no dispute that theof the Bombay scheme as it was in force at the time of the agreement between the management and the workmen in 1949 is being implemented. The workmens case appears to be that when theof these creelers were revised in Bombay with effect from November 1955 the appellants were also bound to apply the revised rates to the creelers working in their Mills. The decision of this question depends on the terms of the agreement. All that we find stated in the agreement regarding this is in these terms :"With regard to the standardization of wages in all occupations, the Bombay standardization scheme is accepted in toto."7. Without anything more the agreement must therefore be held to be for the acceptance of the Bombay standardization scheme as it stood on the date of the agreement, viz., 27 February, 1949. It was sought to be argued on behalf of the workmen that the intention of the parties was that effect would also be given to any change that might take place after the date of the agreement. We are unable to find any force in this contention