Case: Workmen Represented By Secretary Vs. Management Of Reptakos Brett.And Co. Ltd. And Anr

company to pay according to this scheme. From the materials available we do not find that this plea can be accepted. The records produced show that despite this system of dearness allowance the Company has been making profits and has been improving its position year by year ............................. We do not think it necessary to deal at length about the evolution of the concept of dearness allowance. Suffice it to say that this Court has, often times, emphasised the need for a living wage to workmen instead of a subsisting wage. It is indeed a matter of concern and fortification that even today the aspirations of a living wage for workmen remain a mirage and a distant dream. Nothing short of a living wage can be a fair wage. It should be the combined effort of all concerned including the Courts to extend to workmen a helping hand so that they get a living wage which would keep them to some extant at least free from want. It is against this background that a claim by employers to change the conditions of service of workmen to their detriment has to be considered and it is against this background that we have considered the award review. We are not satisfied that a case has been made out on the facts available for a change...... The question is often asked as to whether it would be advisable for Tribunals and Courts to revise the wage structure of workmen to their prejudice when a dispute arises. Normally the answer would be in the negative. Tribunals and Courts can take judicial notice of one fact; and that is that the wages of workmen, except in exceptionally rare cases, fall within the category of mere ``subsisting wages. That being so, it would be unadvisable to tinker with the wage structure of workmen except under compelling circumstances. 30. We agree with Mr. Ramamurthy that the DA scheme - which had stood the test of time for almost thirty years and had been approved by various settlements between the parties - has been unjustifiably abolished by the Courts below and as such the award of the Tribunal and the High Court Judgments are unsustainable. 31. Mr. Nariman has also relied on the judgment of this Court in Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Killick and Allied Companies Employees Union, (1975) Suppl. S.C.R. 453 to support the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court. The said case does not lay down that in all cases the slab system of DA should be abolished to the prejudice of the workers. In the said case this Court on the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the employer had made out a case for putting a ceiling on the dearness allowance. The ratio of that case cannot be extended to interfere with the existing DA schemes in every case where such schemes are beneficial to the workmen. 32. Mr. Nariman has invited our attention to para 20 of the Award wherein the tribunal has held as under: ``These figures as detailed in Ex.M-13 would establish that the company is not in a financial position to bear the additional burden on account of increased wages. 33. From the above finding it was sought to be shown that the Company has proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that financially it was not in a position to bear the burden of the existing DA scheme. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The Tribunal gave the above finding in the reference made on behalf of the workmen asking for bonus increase and various other monetary benefits. While rejecting the demands of the workmen the Tribunal gave the above finding which related to the additional burden accruing in the event of acceptance of the workers demands. The Tribunal nowhere considered the financial position of the company vis-a-vis the existing DA scheme. The Company neither pleaded nor argued before the Tribunal that its financial position had so much deteriorated that it was not possible for it to bear the burden of the slab system of DA. The Tribunal has not dealt with this aspect of the matter while considering the demand of the Company for restructuring the DA scheme. 34. It has been pleaded by the Company that its workmen are in a high wage island and as such the revision of DA scheme was justified. The Company also produced evidence before the Tribunal to show that comparable concerns in the region were paying lesser DA to its workmen. On the basis of the material produced before the Tribunal all that the Company has been able to show is that the DA paid by the Company is somewhat higher than what is being paid by the other similar industries in the region. There is, however, no material on the record to show that what is being paid by the company is higher than what would be required by the concept of need-based minimum wage. In any case there is a very long way between the need-based wage and the living wage. 35. Mr. Nariman reminded us of the limits on our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and relying upon Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1978)2 SCC 45 and The Statesman Ltd. v. Workmen, (1976)3 SCR 228 contended that so long as there is ``some basis, some material to validate the award the ``jurisdiction under Article 136 stands repelled. The Tribunal and the High Court, in this case, has acted in total oblivion of the legal position as propounded by this Court in various judgments referred to by us. Manifest injustice has been caused to the workmen by the award under appeal. We see no force in the contention of the learned counsel.36. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in abolishing the slab system of DA which was operating in the Company for almost thirty years.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]24. We are of the view that it would not be safe to accept the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in Buckingham case as the basis for fixing the wage structure to the prejudice of the workmen. This Court in Standard Vacuum case (supra) has further held that in Bombay the minimum wage in the year 1940 was Rs. 50 to Rs. 55/-. On that finding it is not possible to accept that the minimum wage in the year 1936 in Madras region was Rs. 26/28. So far as the Good Pastor Press case is concerned the question of determining the minimum wage in pre-war 1936 was not before the Appellate Tribunal. It only mentioned the fact that Rs. 26/- was held to be so by some of the subordinate tribunals. There was no discussion at all on this point. The tribunals reliance on this case was wholly misplaced.25. In any case we are of the opinion that purchasing power of todays wage cannot be judged by making calculations which are solely based on 30/40 years old wage structure. The only reasonable way to determine the category of wage structure is to evaluate each component of the category concerned in the light of the prevailing prices. There has been sky-rocking rise in the prices and the inflation chart is going up so fast that the only way to do justice to the labour is to determine the money value of various components of the minimum wage in the context of today.We agree with Mr. Ramamurthy that the DA scheme - which had stood the test of time for almost thirty years and had been approved by various settlements between the parties - has been unjustifiably abolished by the Courts below and as such the award of the Tribunal and the High Court Judgments are unsustainable.From the above finding it was sought to be shown that the Company has proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that financially it was not in a position to bear the burden of the existing DA scheme. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The Tribunal gave the above finding in the reference made on behalf of the workmen asking for bonus increase and various other monetary benefits. While rejecting the demands of the workmen the Tribunal gave the above finding which related to the additional burden accruing in the event of acceptance of the workers demands. The Tribunal nowhere considered the financial position of the company vis-a-vis the existing DA scheme. The Company neither pleaded nor argued before the Tribunal that its financial position had so much deteriorated that it was not possible for it to bear the burden of the slab system of DA. The Tribunal has not dealt with this aspect of the matter while considering the demand of the Company for restructuring the DA scheme.Mr. Nariman reminded us of the limits on our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and relying upon Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1978)2 SCC 45 and The Statesman Ltd. v. Workmen, (1976)3 SCR 228 contended that so long as there is ``some basis, some material to validate the award the ``jurisdiction under Article 136 stands repelled. The Tribunal and the High Court, in this case, has acted in total oblivion of the legal position as propounded by this Court in various judgments referred to by us. Manifest injustice has been caused to the workmen by the award under appeal. We see no force in the contention of the learned counsel.36. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in abolishing the slab system of DA which was operating in the Company for almost thirty years.