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

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 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
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