Case: Workmen of M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited Vs. M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited

now.6. Before the Industrial Tribunal the workmen examined one witness S. K. Srivastava and the respondent examined one R. S. Pathak. Referring to the evidence of these two witnesses the Tribunal pointed out that "when the extra payment of 12 1/2 per cent was made to the weavers it was also given to the Line Jobbers, but the wages of the latter were first calculated by excluding 12 1/2 per cent increase on the wages of weavers and after calculating the earnings thus an addition of 12 1/2 per cent was made. This had to be done because obviously the benefit of 12 1/2 per cent increase could not be given to the Mistries twice. The wages of weavers were revised after rationalisation and every weaver who was previously paid the wage for two loom working began to be paid on the basis of three-loom working. However, the number of weavers was reduced to one-half and there was likelihood of the Mistries wages being reduced, as result of reduction in the number of weavers."In order, therefore, to compensate the Mistries, 12 1/2 per cent increase continued to be given to them which ultimately was superseded by the agreement arrived at in the Award Cases Nos. 57 and 88 of 1966, whereunder the wages of Mistries were increased from two annas per rupee to three annas or 18 paise per rupee. The agreement, however, did not specify that the addition of 12 1/2 per cent would continue to be given on the revised rate of wages to the Mistries. The workmen contend that since the Dear Food Allowance and Rs. 8/- are being paid, this 12 1/2 per cent which is also an allowance should also be paid to them. What has to be considered is what the Line Mistries were getting before the settlement and what they are getting after the settlement. A calculation on the hypothetical basis which has been given by the respondent, which to our mind seems to illustrate two different methods under which the Mistries were being paid actually, would show that the Line Mistries are getting more at the rate of 18 paise per rupee even without the addition of 12 1/2 per cent. It is obvious, therefore, that the agreement between the parties took this into account and the omission to mention 12 1/2 per cent is significant in that it was not intended that a further 12 1/2 per cent was to be added to their basic wages. The statement Ext. E-5 will show that the average increase in the total earnings of Line Jobbers for the month of December 1967 was Rs. 10.83. The Tribunal observed that "Not a single Mistri or Line Jobber has come forward to say that he has suffered in earnings by reason of introduction of the new formula of calculation." The learned Advocate for the appellant, however, stated that the workmens cause was espoused by the workers Union and that fact itself is sufficient to show that the Line Mistries had suffered in their earnings. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention, nor is there any warrant for the calculation given by him that before the four-loom system was introduced the Mistries were getting Rs. 204/- per month and after that they (were) getting less. The workmens witness admitted in Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1966 that the settlement was made after calculation of the basic earnings of a Line Jobber which means that the basic earnings of Line Jobbers were calculated and the new rate was fixed assuring that the Line Jobbers were not put to any loss. On this aspect the employers witness after supporting the calculations given above stated thus :"After the introduction of four-loom working the average wage of a weaver came to about Rs. 72/- to Rs. 80/-. After enforcement of Sampurnanand Award we calculated the wages of four-loom workers according to that award. The earnings of weavers remain more or less the same. Statement Ex. E-4 was prepared by me from the records of the Mill. It is correct and is signed by me. All these calculations were calculated by me. Ex. E-5 is an extract of this statement. It is also signed by me and is correct. The earnings of Line Jobbers have increased by calculation @ 18 paise per rupee. Now we pay wages to line Jobbers @ 18 paise per rupee of the wages of weavers without making addition or subtraction either way in the total of weavers wages. By weavers wages, I mean the wages paid to them according to the Sampurnanand Award. The wage board increase still stands separately. The 12 1/2 % increase has already been accounted for in weavers wages. Both the weavers as well as Mistries are getting wage Board increase of (Rs.) 8/- p. m."Again at another place the witness stated:"By increase in the number of looms I mean increase in the number of looms in the mill taken as a whole. Number of looms has been increasing from 40 to 50 and from 50 to 60 in a line. The number of weavers went on increasing with the number of weavers in a line. With the increase of number of weavers in a line, the wages of Line Jobber increased automatically. With the introduction of the system of four-loom working the number of weavers decreased. With the introduction of the new rate of 18 paise per rupee of the wages of weavers, the wage of a line Jobber increased by about Rs. 10/- p.m. The underlying object of all the formulas apply to the wages of line jobbers was that their wages should not decrease."This latter statement was made in cross-examination and at any rate the statements made by the employers witness were not seriously challenged. In cross-examination and we do not see any ground for interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal which is amply borne out by the materials on record.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]5. It will be seen from the above extract that the 12 1/2 per cent interim increase which was recommended for almost all the industries in the United Provinces was based on thebasic wages and this suggestion was accepted by all the parties. In the case of piece rated workers like weavers, as there were large number of piece rates for different qualities of textile production for convenience of calculation, the increase of 12 1/2 per cent was added up separately for several years to arrive at the basic earnings to which were added Dear Food Allowance etc.on the earnings of the Mistries the 12 1/2 per cent was separately added and that became their basic earnings. Apart from the basic earnings payable to the employees they were also paid Dear Food Allowance and Rs.It submitted by the respondent that the wages of the Mistries were, however, worked out and their rates were applied on the total basic earnings of the weavers excluding the said 12 1/2 per cent increase, so as not to give double increase to the Mistries. In July 1952, in the piece rates payable to the weavers the said increase of 12 1/2 per cent in each of the said rates was merged with the result that the payment to the weavers on the production included the aforesaid 12 1/2 per cent increase which was therefore not required to be separately calculated. With regard to the Mistries, however, in order to exactly calculate their basic earnings, it became necessary first to arrive at the basic earnings of the weavers by excluding the said 12 1/2 per cent element which had been merged in their rates, and from the figure arrived at which represented the 1947 basic wages of the weavers the earnings of the Mistries were calculated at their rates and to the amount so arrived, 121/2 per cent was added which became the basic earnings of thecalculations of these two systems would facilitate a better understanding and in Annexure A of the Statement of the Case of the respondent, the two systems were illustrated by methods IV, V and VI which are as follows:"IV. Calculation with effect fromwhen instead of variable rates between10 per rupee payable to Mistries was increased. toV. Method followed to calculate the basic earning of Mistries after switch over to 4 loom system of working(a) On the same hypothesis the basic earnings of all weavers in a particular84.37, because weavers were paid on 3/4th of their production on 4 looms. Therefore to arrive at what would have been their wages if paid on 2 loom working so that the Mistries rate be applied correctly.is, therefore, contended by the respondent that in fact the Line Mistries are getting more than they were getting before when they were paid/2/of the basic earnings of the weavers plus 12 1/2 per cent. This is exclusive of the Dear Food Allowance and Rs. 8/which are being paid even now.Before the Industrial Tribunal the workmen examined one witness S. K. Srivastava and the respondent examined one R. S. Pathak. Referring to the evidence of these two witnesses the Tribunal pointed out that "when the extra payment of 12 1/2 per cent was made to the weavers it was also given to the Line Jobbers, but the wages of the latter were first calculated by excluding 12 1/2 per cent increase on the wages of weavers and after calculating the earnings thus an addition of 12 1/2 per cent was made. This had to be done because obviously the benefit of 12 1/2 per cent increase could not be given to the Mistries twice. The wages of weavers were revised after rationalisation and every weaver who was previously paid the wage for two loom working began to be paid on the basis ofworking. However, the number of weavers was reduced toand there was likelihood of the Mistries wages being reduced, as result of reduction in the number of weavers."In order, therefore, to compensate the Mistries, 12 1/2 per cent increase continued to be given to them which ultimately was superseded by the agreement arrived at in the Award Cases Nos. 57 and 88 of 1966, whereunder the wages of Mistries were increased from two annas per rupee to three annas or 18 paise per rupee. The agreement, however, did not specify that the addition of 12 1/2 per cent would continue to be given on the revised rate of wages to the Mistries. The workmen contend that since the Dear Food Allowance and Rs. 8/are being paid, this 12 1/2 per cent which is also an allowance should also be paid to them. What has to be considered is what the Line Mistries were getting before the settlement and what they are getting after the settlement. A calculation on the hypothetical basis which has been given by the respondent, which to our mind seems to illustrate two different methods under which the Mistries were being paid actually, would show that the Line Mistries are getting more at the rate of 18 paise per rupee even without the addition of 12 1/2 per cent. It is obvious, therefore, that the agreement between the parties took this into account and the omission to mention 12 1/2 per cent is significant in that it was not intended that a further 12 1/2 per cent was to be added to their basic wages. The statement Ext.will show that the average increase in the total earnings of Line Jobbers for the month of December 1967 was Rs. 10.83. The Tribunal observed that "Not a single Mistri or Line Jobber has come forward to say that he has suffered in earnings by reason of introduction of the new formula of calculation." The learned Advocate for the appellant, however, stated that the workmens cause was espoused by the workers Union and that fact itself is sufficient to show that the Line Mistries had suffered in their earnings. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention, nor is there any warrant for the calculation given by him that before thesystem was introduced the Mistries were getting Rs. 204/per month and after that they (were) getting less. The workmens witness admitted in Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1966 that the settlement was made after calculation of the basic earnings of a Line Jobber which means that the basic earnings of Line Jobbers were calculated and the new rate was fixed assuring that the Line Jobbers were not put to anylatter statement was made inand at any rate the statements made by the employers witness were not seriously challenged. Inand we do not see any ground for interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal which is amply borne out by the materials on record.