Case: Workmen of British India Corporation, Limited Vs. British India Corporation, Limited

be compared. It came to the conclusion that the nearest industry which could be taken into consideration for purpose of comparison was the cotton textile industry. It pointed out that both cotton textiles and woollen textiles are parts of the textile industry, the difference being only in the material used. It therefore held that it would be proper to consider the wages paid in the cotton textile industry in Kanpur for purposes of comparison. We are of opinion that the tribunal cannot be said to be in error when it took the cotton textile industry in Kanpur for purposes of comparison as there are no other woollen mills in that region.4. The tribunal then considered first the wages of operatives in the spinning and weaving section. It pointed out that the wage board in the cotton industry had recommended an ad hoc increase in the wages of operatives in cotton mills and that recommendation had been carried out. It therefore allowed the same increase in the wages of operatives in the mills with this difference that the increase was allowed from January 1, 1961 instead of January 1, 1960 which was the date in the case of cotton textile industry. The reason for this difference appears to be that the reference was made in June, 1961 and the tribunal thought it expedient to begin the increase from January 1, 1961. In the circumstance, we are unable to see anything wrong with the view taken by the tribunal as to the extent of the increase and also as to the date from which the increase should begin. The contention of the appellants on this head must therefore fail.5. Next we come to the engineering and power-house section. The appellant contended that this staff should not be paid at the same rate at which the other operatives were being paid by the mills. It was urged that this section of the mills should be treated as a separate industry and compared with the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration and wages of the workmen in the engineering and power-house section of the mills should be fixed according to wages in the Kanpur Electric supply Administration. The tribunal rejected this contention and gave the same increase to this staff as he had given to the operatives in the spinning and weaving section of the mills. There can be no doubt that the engineering and power-house section of the mills is a part of the mills and in incidental to its working. It cannot be treated as a separate industry or its own and on that ground compared with the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration. The tribunal has also pointed out that there are similar sections in the cotton mills in Kanpur and the workmen in those sections are paid on par with other operatives in the cotton mills. It has also pointed out that taking into consideration wages in these sections of the cotton mills in Kanpur there is no appreciable, difference in the wages paid to the engineering and power-house section in the mills. It therefore decided to treat the workmen of the engineering and power house section in the same manner as the operatives of the shining and weaving section.6. We gave considered the matter very carefully and we are of opinion that the tribunal was right in holding that the engineering and power-house section which is incidental to the mills cannot be treated as a separate industry and on that ground compared with the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration. On this view, therefore, the tribunal was right in giving the same increase to the workmen in this section as it did to the apparitions in the spinning and weaving section. The contention of the appellants on this head must fail.We now come to clerks. The tribunal has given them the same scales as had been given by the Central Wage Board in the cotton industry. Once it is accepted that wages in the mills should be brought on the same level as wages in cotton mills as recommended by the Central Wage Board, the decision of the tribunal giving the same scales to clerks in the mills as provided in the recommendation of the board is correct. The only thing that has been urged is that the clerks in the mills should have been given category I, provided by the Central Wage Board and not category II. But it appears that the Kanpur cotton Mills are in category II and that is why the tribunal has given wages of category II to clerks in the mills. In the circumstances, we cannot say that this view of the tribunal is incorrect. The contention on this head must therefore also fail.7. Lastly we come to supervisors. The tribunal treated them on a part with operatives and gave the same increase. It seems to have been urged before the tribunal that supervisors should be equated with clerks. The tribunal however pointed out that there was total dearth of evidence to show what duties the supervisors performed and why there was difference in the basic wages paid to different supervisors. It also pointed out that the supervisors could not be treated on par with clerks because the nature of their duties was not the same, it held that the work performed by supervisors was not proved to be of higher responsibility and was really not supervisory in nature as seems to be indicated by the designation itself. It therefore held that as they were doing technical work, they, in the absence of proper material, must be treated on par with other operatives and ordered accordingly. In the absence of proper material it was in our opinion not possible for the tribunal to provide more than it did for supervisors, Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the tribunal was wrong in saying that it would do no more far supervisors in the absence of proper material. The contention on this head must also be rejected.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]3. Taking first the question of amalgamation of dourness allowance with wages, the tribunal held that this question had not been referred to it. We have already set out the term of reference, and it is obvious that there is no express reference in that term to the amalgamation of dearness allowance with wages.It is true that in a sense dearness allowance is part of wages : but we are of opinion that the question of amalgamation of dearness allowance with basic wages raises specific and distinct issues some of which may be ofeffect in the region to which this industry belongs and such a question cannot be considered as a mere incidental matter arising out of the reference as to increase in wages. Increase in wages is a very different matter and such an increase would not necessarily comprise even increase the question of amalgamation of dearness allowance with basic wages. We agree with the tribunal that if it was the intention of government that the matter of amalgamation of dearness allowance and basic wages should be considered by tribunal there should have been a specific term in the reference to the effect. In the absence of such a terms, it was not possible for the tribunal to consider this question and thus make a radical change in the pattern of wages prevalent in the region as if byWe therefore reject the contention of the appellants in this behalf.Turning now to the question of wages, the tribunal pointed out that there was no woollen mill in the region. It had therefore to decide with what other industry the wages prevalent in the mills had to be compared. It came to the conclusion that the nearest industry which could be taken into consideration for purpose of comparison was the cotton textile industry. It pointed out that both cotton textiles and woollen textiles are parts of the textile industry, the difference being only in the material used. It therefore held that it would be proper to consider the wages paid in the cotton textile industry in Kanpur for purposes of comparison. We are of opinion that the tribunal cannot be said to be in error when it took the cotton textile industry in Kanpur for purposes of comparison as there are no other woollen mills in that region.4. The tribunal then considered first the wages of operatives in the spinning and weaving section. It pointed out that the wage board in the cotton industry had recommended an ad hoc increase in the wages of operatives in cotton mills and that recommendation had been carried out. It therefore allowed the same increase in the wages of operatives in the mills with this difference that the increase was allowed from January 1, 1961 instead of January 1, 1960 which was the date in the case of cotton textile industry. The reason for this difference appears to be that the reference was made in June, 1961 and the tribunal thought it expedient to begin the increase from January 1, 1961. In the circumstance, we are unable to see anything wrong with the view taken by the tribunal as to the extent of the increase and also as to the date from which the increase should begin. The contention of the appellants on this head must therefore fail.5. Next we come to the engineering ande tribunal rejected this contention and gave the same increase to this staff as he had given to the operatives in the spinning and weaving section of the mills. There can be no doubt that the engineering andsection of the mills is a part of the mills and in incidental to its working. It cannot be treated as a separate industry or its own and on that ground compared with the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration. The tribunal has also pointed out that there are similar sections in the cotton mills in Kanpur and the workmen in those sections are paid on par with other operatives in the cotton mills. It has also pointed out that taking into consideration wages in these sections of the cotton mills in Kanpur there is no appreciable, difference in the wages paid to the engineering andsection in the mills. It therefore decided to treat the workmen of the engineering and power house section in the same manner as the operatives of the shining and weaving section.6. We gave considered the matter very carefully and we are of opinion that the tribunal was right in holding that the engineering andsection which is incidental to the mills cannot be treated as a separate industry and on that ground compared with the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration. On this view, therefore, the tribunal was right in giving the same increase to the workmen in this section as it did to the apparitions in the spinning and weaving section. The contention of the appellants on this head must fail.We now come to clerks. The tribunal has given them the same scales as had been given by the Central Wage Board in the cotton industry. Once it is accepted that wages in the mills should be brought on the same level as wages in cotton mills as recommended by the Central Wage Board, the decision of the tribunal giving the same scales to clerks in the mills as provided in the recommendation of the board is correct. The only thing that has been urged is that the clerks in the mills should have been given category I, provided by the Central Wage Board and not category II. But it appears that the Kanpur cotton Mills are in category II and that is why the tribunal has given wages of category II to clerks in the mills. In the circumstances, we cannot say that this view of the tribunal is incorrect. The contention on this head must therefore also fail.7. Lastly we come to supervisors. The tribunal treated them on a part with operatives and gave the same increase. It seems to have been urged before the tribunal that supervisors should be equated with clerks. The tribunal however pointed out that there was total dearth of evidence to show what duties the supervisors performed and why there was difference in the basic wages paid to different supervisors. It also pointed out that the supervisors could not be treated on par with clerks because the nature of their duties was not the same, it held that the work performed by supervisors was not proved to be of higher responsibility and was really not supervisory in nature as seems to be indicated by the designation itself. It therefore held that as they were doing technical work, they, in the absence of proper material, must be treated on par with other operatives and ordered accordingly. In the absence of proper material it was in our opinion not possible for the tribunal to provide more than it did for supervisors, Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the tribunal was wrong in saying that it would do no more far supervisors in the absence of proper material. The contention on this head must also be rejected.