Case: Management of all Tea Estates in Assam Vs. Indian National Trade Union Congress Dibrugarh &amp; Others

us that the cash compensation had merged in the minimum wages fixed by the Government.10. Reliance was, however, placed upon the Report of the Minimum Wages Committee and it was contended that the Committee provided for diet of 3,000 calories for an adult male worker instead of a diet of 2,746 calories which was being enjoyed by him hithertofore. It was further contended that the diet of 2,746 calories included 5 seers of rice and if that diet of 2,746 calories was thus taken into account while fixing the minimum wage, the minimum wage included the calory value of 5 seers of rice and whatever cash compensation was being paid by the employers before that date for the cut in the rice ration from 5 seers to 3.5 seers was therefore included in the minimum wage which was recommended by the Minimum wages Committee and accepted by the Government. It was also contended that the cut in the rice ration 5 seers to 3.5 seers was offset by the provision made for the workmen in the shape of other non-cereal foodstuffs which went to make up-the revised diet of 3,000 calories and, therefore, the minimum wage recommended by the Committee and fixed by the Government was inclusive of the cash compensation which was being paid by the employers to the workmen for this cut in the rice ration and such compensation therefore merged in the minimum wage which was fixed by the Government.11. There are, however, two fallacies in this argument which was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant before us. The one is that the very basis of the submission, viz., that the diet of 2,746 calories included the calorie value of, 5 seers of rice appears to be factually wrong. We were not supplied any figures which would go to show that the diet of 2,746 calories which was consumed by an adult male worker included 5 seers of rice and not 3.5 seers of rice which was the only ration purveyed to the worker on the basis of the All India Ration Scale. In the absence of any such figures it is impossible for us to come to the conclusion that the diet of 2,746 calories which was being consumed by an adult male worker included 5 seers of rice. If 2,746 calories had to be made up it would necessarily include besides the calorie value of 3.5 seers of rice which was the only ration obtainable by the worker, the equivalent calorie value of other non- cereal foodstuffs which would go to make up the requirements of his normal diet. All this was taken into account when the Minimum Wages Committee fixed in paragraph 14 A of its Report the quantities of foodstuffs, cereal as well as non-cereal, which would go to make up a total dietary value of 2,600 calories mentioned therein. These calculations go to show that instead of 5 seers of rice having been taken into account in fixing the minimum wages it was only 3.5 seers of rice that were taken into account and there is no basis for the submission which was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Committee took into consideration the 5 seers of rice which were being supplied by the employers the workmen and thus merged the cash compensation which was being given to the workmen for the cut in the rice ration in the minimum wage which it recommended.12. The other fallacy lies in this that the Report of the Minimum Wages Committee was considered by the learned counsel for the appellant as the final word on the subject. The Minimum Wages Committee was merely an advisory body and under S.5 of the Minimum Wages Act the function of the Committee was to collect materials, make enquiries and advise the Government in the matter of the fixation or revision of the minimum wages. The Government was not bound to adopt that report. It could accept it either wholly or in part or it could also modify it and in this particular case, be it noted, the notification dated the 11th March, 1952, expressly stated that the minimum wages as fixed by the Government consisted of basic wages and, dearness allowance in terms of S.4(1)(i) but as the workmen were getting essential commodities which included rice at concessional rates, such rights as also other amenities were preserved by paragraph 2 of the notification. If it was thus competent to the Government to accept only a part of the Report and substitute its own decision for such part of it as did not meet with its approval it could not be urged that the report of the Minimum Wages Committee governed the situation.Assuming Wages Committee included within its calculation of minimum wage the cash compensation which was being paid by the employers to the workmen for, the cut in rice ration, it was open to the Government nevertheless to give the go by to it and recommend that the cash compensation be paid by the employers to the workmen as hithertofore in addition to the minimum wage which was fixed by the Committee. The terms of paragraph 2 of the notification make it abundantly clear that whatever may have been at the back of the Committees mind in fixing the minimum wage the Government thought it proper that the employers should make available to the workmen, all concessions enjoyed by them in respect of the supply of foodstuffs and other essential commodities and the other amenities which they used to enjoy. The concession enjoyed by the workmen in respect of the supply of foodstuffs included the supply of 3.5 seers of rice at concession rates as also cash compensation for the non-supply of 1.5 seers of rice by reason of the All India Ration Scale. This was the concession which was being enjoyed by the workmen and that was the concession which was preserved to the workmen under paragraph 2 of the notification.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]There is no doubt that the employers used to provide 5 seers of rice to an adult male worker at concession rates before February, 1950. When that quantum of 5 seers of rice was reduced after, February, 1950, byper week, the employers paid to their workmen cash compensation for that cut in the rice ration at the rate of 6 pies per working day. When later on 18th November, 1950, the, Government, by the notification issued the, Food Control Order, fixed the rice quota of the workmen on an All India Ration Scale at 32 seers of rice per week, there was a further cut of another seer of rice per week and the cash compensation payable by the employers to the workmen was increased and fixed at 8 as by the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated the 11th December, 1951. Even though the employers had contended before the Industrial Tribunal that the concession which had been given to the workmen in respect of the sale price of rice wasex gratiaand the workmen had no legal claim thereto, that contention was negatived by the Industrial Tribunal and it was held that the employers were under a legal obligation to pay cash compensation to the workmen for the said cut in the supply of rice. When Appeal No. Cal.27/52 taken by the employers before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was heard, the employers did not reiterate their contention that they were under no legal obligation to pay cash compensation for the rice cut and the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the workmen had a legal right to get cash compensation for the reduction in the rice quota remained unchallenged. It is clear, therefore, that the employers were, before the 11th March, 1952, when the minimum wages were fixed by the Government of Assam, under a legal obligation to pay cash compensation to the workmen for the reduction in the rice quota.9. This was the concession which was being enjoyed by the workmen in respect of the supply of food stuffs when the minimum wages were fixed by the notification dated the 11th March, 1952. The Industrial Tribunal had already made its award in regard thereto on the 11th December, 1951, which was published in the Assam Gazette on the 2nd February, 1952, and this position was well within the knowledge of the Government of Assam when it published its notification dated the 11th March, 1952, after considering the Report of the Minimum Wages Committee. Whether this cash compensation was a concession enjoyed by the workmen in respect of the supply of foodstuffs or had been translated into an amenity as held by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in its award under appeal before us, it was saved by paragraph 2 of the notification and if the matters had stood thus, there could be no justification for the argument which was strenuously urged before us that the cash compensation had merged in the minimum wages fixed by the Government.There are, however, two fallacies in this argument which was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant before us. The one is that the very basis of the submission, viz., that the diet of 2,746 calories included the calorie value of, 5 seers of rice appears to be factually wrong. We were not supplied any figures which would go to show that the diet of 2,746 calories which was consumed by an adult male worker included 5 seers of rice and not 3.5 seers of rice which was the only ration purveyed to the worker on the basis of the All India Ration Scale. In the absence of any such figures it is impossible for us to come to the conclusion that the diet of 2,746 calories which was being consumed by an adult male worker included 5 seers of rice. If 2,746 calories had to be made up it would necessarily include besides the calorie value of 3.5 seers of rice which was the only ration obtainable by the worker, the equivalent calorie value of other noncereal foodstuffs which would go to make up the requirements of his normal diet. All this was taken into account when the Minimum Wages Committee fixed in paragraph 14 A of its Report the quantities of foodstuffs, cereal as well aswhich would go to make up a total dietary value of 2,600 calories mentioned therein. These calculations go to show that instead of 5 seers of rice having been taken into account in fixing the minimum wages it was only 3.5 seers of rice that were taken into account and there is no basis for the submission which was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Committee took into consideration the 5 seers of rice which were being supplied by the employers the workmen and thus merged the cash compensation which was being given to the workmen for the cut in the rice ration in the minimum wage which it recommended.12. The other fallacy lies in this that the Report of the Minimum Wages Committee was considered by the learned counsel for the appellant as the final word on the subject. The Minimum Wages Committee was merely an advisory body and under S.5 of the Minimum Wages Act the function of the Committee was to collect materials, make enquiries and advise the Government in the matter of the fixation or revision of the minimum wages. The Government was not bound to adopt that report. It could accept it either wholly or in part or it could also modify it and in this particular case, be it noted, the notification dated the 11th March, 1952, expressly stated that the minimum wages as fixed by the Government consisted of basic wages and, dearness allowance in terms of S.4(1)(i) but as the workmen were getting essential commodities which included rice at concessional rates, such rights as also other amenities were preserved by paragraph 2 of the notification. If it was thus competent to the Government to accept only a part of the Report and substitute its own decision for such part of it as did not meet with its approval it could not be urged that the report of the Minimum Wages Committee governed the situation.Assuming Wages Committee included within its calculation of minimum wage the cash compensation which was being paid by the employers to the workmen for, the cut in rice ration, it was open to the Government nevertheless to give the go by to it and recommend that the cash compensation be paid by the employers to the workmen as hithertofore in addition to the minimum wage which was fixed by the Committee. The terms of paragraph 2 of the notification make it abundantly clear that whatever may have been at the back of the Committees mind in fixing the minimum wage the Government thought it proper that the employers should make available to the workmen, all concessions enjoyed by them in respect of the supply of foodstuffs and other essential commodities and the other amenities which they used to enjoy. The concession enjoyed by the workmen in respect of the supply of foodstuffs included the supply of 3.5 seers of rice at concession rates as also cash compensation for theof 1.5 seers of rice by reason of the All India Ration Scale. This was the concession which was being enjoyed by the workmen and that was the concession which was preserved to the workmen under paragraph 2 of the notification.