Fawazzx/semantic huggingface dataset:
1961 Indlaw SC 157 (supra).Bhagwati,J.observed that the ambit of section 35(1) of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act which fell for consideration in Hari Shanker's case 1961 Indlaw SC 157 (supra) was the same as section 29(3) of the  Bombay Rent Act and therefore,he expressed the opinion that the High Court could interfere only if there was miscarriage of justice due to mistake of law
Semantic role: Precedent
Indlaw SC 244 observed that where lower courts applied their minds properly in deciding a matter under section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act,the High Court could not substitute its own finding for the one reached by the courts below,on a reappraisal of evidence under section 29(2) of the Act as substituted by the Gujarat Act 18 of 1965.This Court reiterated that although the High Court had wider power than that which could be exercised under section 115 of C.P.C.,yet its revisional power could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the decision was according to law
Semantic role: Precedent
The revised pay scales of all categories,except the category of Draughtsmen,shows an increase of Rs.100/-in the initial pay fixed in each scale,the increase in the case of the category of Draughtsmen being Rs.150/-.There was only one increase contemplated in the award,in paragraph 23 of award,and it is more than plain that the increase was the one incorporated in the revised pay scales pertaining to different categories
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
On the basis that a sum of Rs.150/-per month was added to the pay of each Draughtsman and a sum of Rs.100/-was added to the pay of every other workman,who belonged to the Union staff,the financial load would increase to Rs.9,22,032/-.Likewise,if a flat increase of Rs.100/-was given to individual workmen of all categories,including Draughtsmen,the increased financial load would total Rs.7,64,256/-.The statement then goes on to indicate that if a flat increase of Rs.75/-per month were given to individual workmen of all categories the total increase would be Rs.5,78,220/-.Again,if the flat increase is Rs.65/-per month to the individual workmen of all categories,the additional load would total Rs.4,97,772/-.Finally,on the basis that the individual Draughtsman would be given an increase of Rs.75/-per month and the individual workmen of other categories Rs.50/-per month,the additional load was calculated at Rs.4,63,092/-.It will be noted that the statement,Exhibit C-51,was prepared on the basis of the employees' strength as in December,1971.A similar statement was prepared on the basis of the employees' strength as in September,1978.These statements cannot be regarded as evidence that the appellant was cognizant of the intention of the Tribunal to provide a flat increase to the pay of each workman
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
We also agree with him that Civil Appeal No.2299 of 1979 should also be dismissed in so far as it relates to the award dated December 20,1978.However,we do not agree with our learned brother that Civil Appeal No.2299 of 1979 should be allowed in so far as it relates to the order dated December 22,1978 of the Industrial Tribunal which purports to correct the award dated December 20,1978.In our opinion Civil Appeal No.2299 of 1979 should be dismissed in its entirety
Semantic role: Ruling by Present Court
It is needless to recapitulate all the basic facts which have been set out in the judgment of Pathak,J.The Award of the Industrial Tribunal was made on December 20,1978.On December 22,1978 that is to say,two days after the Award was made and when everything must have been fresh to the minds of the Tribunal,the respective parties and their Advocates,the employees Union made an application under Rule 31 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules,1957 seeking a correction of an error,which it was claimed,had crept into the Award
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
The Tribunal then observed: "......the flat increase of Rs.150/-in the category of Draftsmen and Rs.100/-in the case of the other categories would be fair".Thereafter various other matters were considered and finally the Tribunal revised the wage scales in the manner already mentioned by my brother Pathak,J.The question of "Fitment" was then considered in the following manner: " Fitment:- If as on 1st January,1976,an employee is drawing a salary less than the beginning of the respective grade,he should be first stepped up to the beginning of the grade
Semantic role: Facts
It was clearly so intended by the Tribunal as is evident from the reference to "flat increase of Rs.150/-in the category of Draftsmen and Rs.100/-in the case of the other categories".Since there was to be a flat increase of Rs.150/-and Rs.100/-in the case of draftsmen and other workmen respectively,the revised wage scale had necessarily to commence with figures Rs.150/-and Rs.100/-above the existing wage scales
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Immediately after the award was pronounced,while the iron was still hot as it were,the employees apparently realised that the employer might take advantage of the circumstance that it was not clearly mentioned in the award that all the employees were to get additional pay of Rs.150/-and Rs.100/-respectively and might contend that the Tribunal had only revised the wage scales by increasing the salary on entry into the service and restructuring the scale of pay and never granted any ad hoc increase of salary to all employees
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision