WP/5497/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5497 OF 2010 Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Cooperative Bank Employees Union ... Respondent Mr.V.P. Vaidya for Petitioner Mr.A.V. Bukhari i/b A.S. Peerzada for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 6, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this court against the decision of the Wage Board constituted under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. By the impugned order, which is an interim order, pending the decision on the general demands, the Wage Board has granted an interim increase of 10% of the monthly basic pay plus dearness allowance plus variable dearness allowance to all the employees of the Bank. The Wage Board has further directed that this increase would be adjusted against the final decision of the Wage Board. The bank has challenged the decision of the Wage Board by filing a revision application before the President of the Industrial Court. The revision application (IC) No.7 of 2010 has been dismissed by the Industrial Court. 2. The principal submissions advanced by Mr.Vaidya appearing for the Petitioner WP/5497/2010 : 2 : Bank, are: (i) that the Bank has accumulated losses from 2005 onwards; (iii) that the bank needs to achieve the financial criteria of minimum networth of `50 crores prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India in order to avail of RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) and NEFT (National Electronic Fund Transfer) facilities; (iii) that no dividend is paid to the shareholders; (iv) that the employees are already being paid wages linked to the consumer price index and (v) that the comparative hardship of the petitioner would be much more if interim relief is granted. 3. It is true that interim relief while fixing wages must be granted depending on the capacity of the employer to pay the wages. It is also true that the principles of wage fixation require the industrial adjudicator to consider the profitability of the concern and the burden which could be imposed on the employer if the workers' demands are met. It is also equally true that the principles enunciated in various decisions of the Supreme Court regarding wage fixation must be borne in mind by the industrial adjudicator while deciding whether interim relief should be granted to the workman. 4. It is true that the Bank has shown in its documents produced on record that there are accumulated losses to the tune of Rs.88 crores today. It is also apparent from the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year 2009-2010 which is produced on record that the profitability of the Bank has increased manifold from 2007 to 2010. In fact while the net profit was `251 lacs in 2007 and `12.55 crores in 2010. However, while examining the profitability of a Company for the purposes of wage adjudication it is necessary to consider the gross profits. The gross profits of the bank upto 31.12.2008 are `975 lacs. In fact, it has recovered after the losses of WP/5497/2010 : 3 : 2007, 2008 which were to the tune of `255.93 lacs and has made a profit of `975 lacs in 2008. Therefore in my opinion, the wage board was right in assessing that the profitability of the petitioner bank is good. 5. The contention that the Bank requires its networth to reach `50 crores while it is at `25 crores today for it to survive and avail of the RTGS and NEFT facilities, is a factor which is not material for considering whether a wage rise ought to be granted. It is now well settled that one of the factors on which a revision in the wage scales is dependent is the financial capacity of the employer to bear the additional burden which may accrue due to the increased wages. The additional burden which would be imposed on the employer if the wages as awarded by the wage board are paid is to the tune of Rs.7,80,811/- per month for 386 employees. The average increase which an individual employee would be entitled to is about `2,000/-. This increase would be given to the employees after the last revision of wages in 2003 which was effected by a settlement which was in operation till 2006. Merely because the employees are being paid wages linked to the Consumer Price Index it would not mean that they are not entitled to a wage revision. In fact, in the case of M/s.Karamchand Thapar & Brothers Pvt Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 1266, the Supreme Court has held that a steep rise in the consumer price index would itself justify a revision in wages. The revision of course would be dependent on the employer's capacity to bear the burden, besides other factors. 6. In my opinion, the fact that the employer wishes to avail of the RTGS and NEFT facilities offered by the RBI cannot deprive the workers of a wage revision if the employer has the capacity to bear the burden. In the present case, as I have WP/5497/2010 : 4 : already mentioned the gross profits for the year 2008-2009 as calculated upto 31.12.2008 are `975 lacs whereas the amount payable each month to the workers will be only an amount of `7,80,811/-. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere. 7. Mr.Vaidya draws my attention to the fact that the decision of the wage board is not signed by all the members as required under Rule 16 of the Bombay Wage Board Rules 1948 which are framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. He points out that four members were absent and they have not signed the interim order. He therefore submits that the decision is not executable. 8. In my opinion, this submission cannot be accepted. Under Rule 7, all members of the Wage Board are required to be present but the proceedings are not to be invalidated on account of the absence of any member, if the Chairman is satisfied that for good reason, he was not able to remain present. However, no sittings of the Wage Board can be held in the absence of a Chairman or the entire group of members representing the employers or the employees. Under Rule 15, all questions arising for any decision at any meeting of the Wage Board shall be taken on the basis of the majority vote of the members present including the Chairman. In case there is an equal number of votes, the Chairman shall have a second or casting vote. Rule 16 prescribes that every order or decision of the Wage Board shall be signed by all the members of the Wage Board concerned and shall bear the official seal. 9. Reading the aforesaid rules harmoniously, in my opinion, what is required is WP/5497/2010 : 5 : that all members, present and voting, on a question must sign the decision. This is apparent from the fact that under Rule 7, the decisions of the Wage Board are not to be invalidated on account of the absence of any member. Furthermore, the decision on any issue is to be taken by a majority vote. Undisputedly, the members of the Wage Board who were present when the impugned order was passed have signed the order. 10. In these circumstances, in my view, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no perversity in the order which require this Court to set aside the impugned order. 11. Petition rejected.