Case: The Management of Birla Cotton, Spinning &amp; Weaving Mills Ltd., Delhi Vs. Its Workmen &amp; Others

asked him to make it a part of his award. As that was not done, this agreement cannot by any process of reasoning be taken to be a part of the Dulat award. Nor do we see how the whole of this agreement can become part of the Ghanshyamdas award. It is true that four specific matters were raised with reference to departments other than engineering before Sri Ghanshyamdas. There was, however, no reference before him generally for revision of wages of other department; nor was he asked to consider the Bombay Award No. 1 with reference to other departments. It is true that in considering the specific matters before him he referred to the agreement and decided the specific matters in the context of that agreement; but that would not make the whole of this agreement by implication a part of this award. Therefore the fact that Ghanshyamdas award has not been terminated will be no bar to the revision of wages in other departments besides the engineering department. The tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that consideration of the revision of the 1951 agreement was not barred because the Ghanshyamdas award had not been terminated. The contention of the appellant on this point must fail.11. Turning now to the second point raised on behalf of the appellant, it cannot be disputed that when a standardisation scheme comes into force it is an integrated whole and may sometime result in some categories of workmen getting less than what they were getting before. The whole purpose of a standardization scheme is to standardize wages and where they are low to raise them to the standardized level. Similarly where the wages are high they have to be reduced in order to fit them in the standardized scheme. The tribunal therefore was clearly wrong in acting against the basic principle of standardized scheme when it ordered that the wages should be increased according to the standardized scheme where they were low but should not be decreased where they were high.This principle of standardization is clear and even the learned counsel for the workmen had to admit it. That part of the award therefore which lays down that in spite of standardization in accordance with the Bombay Award No. 1, the wages of those categories of workmen who are getting higher wages than in the Bombay Award No. 1 should remain at the same level is patently wrong and must be set aside.12. The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that the tribunal went wrong in departing from what Sri Ghanshyamdas had laid down as to the proportion relating to the price levels of Bombay and Delhi. A perusal of the award of the tribunal shows that it has dealt with this question in a perfunctory manner. The considered finding of Sri Ghanshyamdas has been given the go-by practically on the oral evidence of one witness. That in out opinion was a highly unsatisfactory method of dealing with this complicated question. We express no opinion as to whether Sri Ghanshyamdas was right in the proportion he had fixed in July 1955 or whether the present tribunal is right in saying that there is no difference between the Bombay price and Delhi price now. This is a matter which has to be seriously investigated and we must say that the approach of the present tribunal to the question has been far from serious and as already indicated it has arrived at that decision practically on the oral evidence of one witness. We are told by learned counsel for the workmen that there was other evidence before the tribunal to justify its conclusion. If that is so, it is clear that the award has not considered it. On the other hand, we are told by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on the other side showed clearly that the proportion worked out by Sri Ghanshyamdas still holds good. If that is so, the award does not properly consider that evidence either. In the circumstances, the conclusion of the tribunal to the effect that there is no difference in price level between Bombay and Delhi cannot be accepted and the award given on this basis must be set aside.13. Coming to the last point raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, that the tribunal has left a part of the dispute to be resolved by the parties themselves, it does seem that the direction of the tribunal with respect to a joint committee going into and investigating anomalies in categories to be found in the appellant-company and not to be found in the Bombay Award No. 1 has left a part of the area of dispute referred to it unresolved. Taking all these matters into consideration the parties agreed before us that the case should be sent back to the tribunal and two assessors should be appointed to assist the tribunal in working out the standardization scheme for the appellant company in all details with the Bombay Award No. 1 as the model and that this scheme should be based on the basic principle of standardization scheme, namely, that where wages are low they should be raised and where they are high they should be lowered. It is also agreed that the question of comparison of prices between Bombay and Delhi may be gone into again properly and it should then be decided whether the prices in the two places are equal or otherwise. Thereafter the tribunal should make an award in consultation with the assessors. The appellant has nominated Sri P. D. Makharia, General Manager, Technological Institute Textiles, Bhiwani (Punjab) as its assessor. The workmen have nominated Sri Prem Sagar Gupta, Member Delhi Municipal Corporation as their assessor and failing him Sri M. L. Mittal, 2-F Kamlanagar, Delhi. As the dispute has been pending for over three years and a half, the tribunal will see that the award is now given within three months or as early as possible thereafter.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]8. Before we deal with the main dispute in the case relating to standardization we may shortly dispose of the Matter relating to the three workmen, namely, Chuni Lal, Durga Prasad and Brij Lal. The parties have agreed before us without prejudice to the contentions raised by thein this behalf that the cases of Brij Lal who has left service and Durga Prasad who has become permanent should be dropped while Chuni Lal should get the benefit of the award from the date of reference. We therefore, order accordingly and the award will be modified accordingly.The argument that the tribunal was wrong in holding that the award of Sri Ghanshyamdas did not stand in the way of revision with respect to departments other than engineering is based on S. 19(6) of the Act. That provision lays down that notwithstanding the expiry of the period of operation under(3) of S. 19, the award shall continue to be binding on the parties till the period of two months has elapsed from the date on which notice is given by any party bound by the award to the other party or parties intimating its intention to terminate the award. Admittedly the awards of Sri Ghanshyamdas and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal have not been terminated and that was the basis of the finding of the tribunal that so far as the workmen of engineering department were concerned there could be no revision of the wages fixed by those awards. The Appellant contends that those awards are also a bar for the same reason to the revisions of wages in other departments. It is clear however that there was no reference to Sri Ghanshyamdas about implementation of the Bombay Award No. 1, or of the general revision of wages so far as departments other than engineering were concerned. The only reference was with respect to four specific matters and so far as the decision on those four specific matters is concerned it may be binding still as that award has been terminated. But the argument on behalf of the appellant is this. It is said that the Dulat award held that there was no justification for delaying standardisation and ordered the parties to work out a scheme taking the Bombay Award No. 1 as the working model. In pursuance of that, a scheme was worked out and the parties, agreed to it on September 29, 1951. Further the Dulat award had directed that in case there was any dispute about fixation of wages or categories which the parties could not resolve by mutual discussion it may be brought before the tribunal in the form of a reference. Therefore, it is urged that when the agreed scheme was evolved on September 29, 1951, it became in a sense a part of the Dulat award. In any case it is urged that even if it did not become a part of the Dulat award it must be taken to have become a part of the Ghanshyamdas award by implication because only four matters were referred at the instance of the workmen to that tribunal out of the matters settled by the agreement of 1951. The argument is certainly ingenious but has no substance in it. It is not contended on behalf of the appellant that the agreement of 1951 amounted to a settlement within the meaning of S. 2(p) of the Act as it stood in 1951; therefore S. 19(2) will not apply to this agreement. Nor can it be accepted that this agreement was a part of the Dulat award, though it may have been arrived at in pursuance of the observations made of Sri Dulat in his award. If the intention of the parties was to make this agreement a part of the Dulat award the parties should have asked Sri Dulat to hold over his award with respect to this matter and then brought the agreement before him and asked him to make it a part of his award. As that was not done, this agreement cannot by any process of reasoning be taken to be a part of the Dulat award. Nor do we see how the whole of this agreement can become part of the Ghanshyamdas award. It is true that four specific matters were raised with reference to departments other than engineering before Sri Ghanshyamdas. There was, however, no reference before him generally for revision of wages of other department; nor was he asked to consider the Bombay Award No. 1 with reference to other departments. It is true that in considering the specific matters before him he referred to the agreement and decided the specific matters in the context of that agreement; but that would not make the whole of this agreement by implication a part of this award. Therefore the fact that Ghanshyamdas award has not been terminated will be no bar to the revision of wages in other departments besides the engineering department. The tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that consideration of the revision of the 1951 agreement was not barred because the Ghanshyamdas award had not been terminated. The contention of the appellant on this point must fail.11. Turning now to the second point raised on behalf of the appellant, it cannot be disputed that when a standardisation scheme comes into force it is an integrated whole and may sometime result in some categories of workmen getting less than what they were getting before. The whole purpose of a standardization scheme is to standardize wages and where they are low to raise them to the standardized level. Similarly where the wages are high they have to be reduced in order to fit them in the standardized scheme. The tribunal therefore was clearly wrong in acting against the basic principle of standardized scheme when it ordered that the wages should be increased according to the standardized scheme where they were low but should not be decreased where they were high.This principle of standardization is clear and even the learned counsel for the workmen had to admit it. That part of the award therefore which lays down that in spite of standardization in accordance with the Bombay Award No. 1, the wages of those categories of workmen who are getting higher wages than in the Bombay Award No. 1 should remain at the same level is patently wrong and must be set aside.12.The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that the tribunal went wrong in departing from what Sri Ghanshyamdas had laid down as to the proportion relating to the price levels of Bombay and Delhi.A perusal of the award of the tribunal shows that it has dealt with this question in a perfunctory manner. The considered finding of Sri Ghanshyamdas has been given thepractically on the oral evidence of one witness. That in out opinion was a highly unsatisfactory method of dealing with this complicated question. We express no opinion as to whether Sri Ghanshyamdas was right in the proportion he had fixed in July 1955 or whether the present tribunal is right in saying that there is no difference between the Bombay price and Delhi price now. This is a matter which has to be seriously investigated and we must say that the approach of the present tribunal to the question has been far from serious and as already indicated it has arrived at that decision practically on the oral evidence of one witness. We are told by learned counsel for the workmen that there was other evidence before the tribunal to justify its conclusion. If that is so, it is clear that the award has not considered it. On the other hand, we are told by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on the other side showed clearly that the proportion worked out by Sri Ghanshyamdas still holds good. If that is so, the award does not properly consider that evidence either. In the circumstances, the conclusion of the tribunal to the effect that there is no difference in price level between Bombay and Delhi cannot be accepted and the award given on this basis must be set aside.13. Coming to the last point raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, that the tribunal has left a part of the dispute to be resolved by the parties themselves, it does seem that the direction of the tribunal with respect to a joint committee going into and investigating anomalies in categories to be found in theand not to be found in the Bombay Award No. 1 has left a part of the area of dispute referred to it unresolved. Taking all these matters into consideration the parties agreed before us that the case should be sent back to the tribunal and two assessors should be appointed to assist the tribunal in working out the standardization scheme for the appellant company in all details with the Bombay Award No. 1 as the model and that this scheme should be based on the basic principle of standardization scheme, namely, that where wages are low they should be raised and where they are high they should be lowered. It is also agreed that the question of comparison of prices between Bombay and Delhi may be gone into again properly and it should then be decided whether the prices in the two places are equal or otherwise. Thereafter the tribunal should make an award in consultation with the assessors. The appellant has nominated Sri P. D. Makharia, General Manager, Technological Institute Textiles, Bhiwani (Punjab) as its assessor. The workmen have nominated Sri Prem Sagar Gupta, Member Delhi Municipal Corporation as their assessor and failing him Sri M. L. Mittal,Kamlanagar, Delhi. As the dispute has been pending for over three years and a half, the tribunal will see that the award is now given within three months or as early as possible thereafter.