Case: Patna Electric Supply Company, Limited Vs. Their Workmen

Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the industrial tribunal, Patna, and the only point raised before us is with respect to scales of wages fixed by the tribunal. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that as the last adjudication on the question of wage-scales was in 1956 and there had been no change in circumstances since then there was no reason for an upward revision of the wage- scales in 1962. Further, it is urged that the wage-scales fixed are much higher than the wage-scales prevalent in similar electric supply concerns in the State of Bihar. In this connexion reliance has been placed for the purpose of comparison on the wage-scales prevalent in the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., and under the Bihar State Electricity Board. It may be added that there is no dispute as to the financial capacity of the appellant to bear the burden of the wage scales awarded by the tribunal.2. We are of opinion that there is no force in either of the two contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. It is true that the last adjudication in connexion with wage-scales was made in 1956. Even so it appears that the wage-structure, the revision of which was demanded by the workmen, was substantially fixed as far back as 1948 by means of an agreement. Thereafter a reference was made in March 1952 for the revision of these pay-scales. The tribunal, however, then decided that no case had been made out for a general revision of wages. All that it did was to rationalize certain scales of pay and made adjustments therein in view of certain anomalies. The matter was then taken to the Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal by the workmen; but the appeal also failed except for certain minor modifications. It will thus be seen that basically the wage-structure of which revision was sought by the reference out of which the present appeal has arisen was fixed in 1948. It is clear therefore that by 1961 there has been a change in circumstances to warrant an upward revision of the wage-structure, for it is undoubted that the cost of living has arisen appreciably since 1943. The appellants contention that the wage-structure should not have been revised because there had been no change in circumstances must therefore fail.The next contention that the wage-structure fixed is very high and out of line with the wage-structure in comparable concerns is also devoid of merit. In particular, the appellant wants to compare the wage-structure prevalent in the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., and under the Bihar State 6 Electricity Board. It may be conceded that generally the wage-structure awarded by the tribunal is higher than the wage-structure prevalent in the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., and under the Bihar State Electricity Board. But we are of opinion that the appellant stands in a class by itself and therefore the provision of a wage-structure somewhat higher than in the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., and under the Bihar State Electricity Board cannot be open to any objection. Patna is the capital city of the State of Bihar and it is well-known that there is no other city in Bihar which can stand comparison with it. Further the Bihar State Electricity Board controls electric supply in muffasil towns and these towns cannot be compared with the capital city.3. We cannot therefore see any reasonable objection to the Patna wage-scales being a little higher than those prevalent under the Bihar State Electricity Board. As for the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., it appears to be a much smaller concern and therefore not comparable. It may also be noted that the dearness allowance in the appellant concern is a fixed amount and does not go up and down with the rise in the index of cost of living. Further the tribunal has not increased the dearness allowance in view of the higher scales awarded by it. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that no case has been made out for interference with decision of the tribunal. We may add that the workmen wanted to rely on pay-scales applicable to workmen in oil companies through agreements concluded in different centres at Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Karachi.4. The tribunal has rightly rejected these scales for purposes of comparison and has evolved scales after taking into account the conditions prevailing in Bihar and also keeping in view the premier position of Patna in the State of Bihar.5.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]We are of opinion that there is no force in either of the two contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. It is true that the last adjudication in connexion withwas made in 1956. Even so it appears that thethe revision of which was demanded by the workmen, was substantially fixed as far back as 1948 by means of an agreement. Thereafter a reference was made in March 1952 for the revision of theseThe tribunal, however, then decided that no case had been made out for a general revision of wages. All that it did was to rationalize certain scales of pay and made adjustments therein in view of certain anomalies. The matter was then taken to the Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal by the workmen; but the appeal also failed except for certain minor modifications. It will thus be seen that basically theof which revision was sought by the reference out of which the present appeal has arisen was fixed in 1948. It is clear therefore that by 1961 there has been a change in circumstances to warrant an upward revision of thefor it is undoubted that the cost of living has arisen appreciably since 1943. The appellants contention that theshould not have been revised because there had been no change in circumstances must therefore fail.The next contention that thefixed is very high and out of line with thein comparable concerns is also devoid of merit. In particular, the appellant wants to compare theprevalent in the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., and under the Bihar State 6 Electricity Board. It may be conceded that generally theawarded by the tribunal is higher than thet in the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., and under the Bihar State Electricity Board.But we are of opinion that the appellant stands in a class by itself and therefore the provision of asomewhat higher than in the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., and under the Bihar State Electricity Board cannot be open to any objection. Patna is the capital city of the State of Bihar and it isthat there is no other city in Bihar which can stand comparison with it. Further the Bihar State Electricity Board controls electric supply in muffasil towns and these towns cannot be compared with the capital city.We cannot therefore see any reasonable objection to the Patnabeing a little higher than those prevalent under the Bihar State Electricity Board. As for the Jharia Electric Supply Company, Ltd., it appears to be a much smaller concern and therefore not comparable. It may also be noted that the dearness allowance in the appellant concern is a fixed amount and does not go up and down with the rise in the index of cost of living. Further the tribunal has not increased the dearness allowance in view of the higher scales awarded by it. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that no case has been made out for interference with decision of the tribunal. We may add that the workmen wanted to rely onapplicable to workmen in oil companies through agreements concluded in different centres at Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Karachi.The tribunal has rightly rejected these scales for purposes of comparison and has evolved scales after taking into account the conditions prevailing in Bihar and also keeping in view the premier position of Patna in the State of Bihar.