Case: Atic Industries Ltd. Etc. Etc Vs. Workmen Etc. Etc.(With Connected Appeals)

1. Civil Appeals Nos. 742 and 2086 of 1968 by special leave, arise out of the decision regarding demand No. 4 under Award Part II, dated November 15, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, in Reference (IT) 65 of 1966. As Atic Industries Ltd., and its workmen could not settle the various demands made by the latter, on the joint application of both, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad, by order dated February 19, 1966 referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, nine demands made by the workmen. The demands cover various matters and have been elaborately set out in the Schedule annexed to the order of reference. It is enough to note that the demands covered revision, of wage scales, dearness allowance shift allowance, vacation travelling allowance, housing facilities etc. Demand No. 4, with which we are concerned was asworkmen who make use of the S. T. Bus Service shall be paid Rs. 20/- per month as Bus Allowance and those workmen who come Cycling from places where S. T. Bus Service is not available shall be paid Rs. 15/- per month as Cycle Allowance and also those workmen who come by train shall be paid Rs. 10/- per month as TrainIndustrial Tribunal by its Award, Part I, dated September 27, 1967 disposed of demands Nos. 1, 2.3, 6 and 9. By its Award, Part II, dated November 15, 1967, the Tribunal disposed of demand Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. In respect of demand No. 4, the Tribunal directed the Company (Atic Industries Ltd.) to pay an allowance of 15 paise per day to every employee who stays at a distance of five miles or more from village Atul. The Tribunal directed this payment to be made with effect from January 1, 1968. The Tribunal further directed that the allowance need not be paid for days on which the workman is on earned leave or any type of leave authorised or otherwise. Atic Industries Ltd. has filed Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1968 challenging the grant of this allowance to its workmen. The workmen have filed Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 1968 challenging the various matters covered by the Award Parts I and II, regarding wage scales, dearness allowance etc. in so far as the Award was against them. In particular, regarding demand No. 4 they have claimed, in the appeal, that a higher allowance should have been granted by the Tribunal. But this Court by its order dated September 24, 1968 has restricted the Special Leave only to the question of transport allowance. Therefore, the various other points raised by the workmen in their appeal no longer survive. While the Company in its appeal No. 742 of 1968 wants the allowance granted under demand No. 4 to be set aside, the workmen, on the other hand, in their appeal No. 2086 of 1968 require the allowance to beNo. 809 of 1968 is by special leave and the appellant therein is Atul Products Ltd. which is also an industry located in Atul village. Here again, on the joint application of the said Company and its workmen, nine demands were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, by order dated June 30, 1966 of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad. The demands related to dearness allowance, shift allowance, housing facilities, vacation travelling allowance etc. Demand No. 6 with which we are concerned in this appeal was asshall provide free transport facility to all workmen. Till such time free transport is made available every workmen shall be paid an allowance of Rs. 15/- per month.The Industrial Tribunal, by its Award Part I, disposed of demand Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. By its Award Part II, dated October 16, 1967, the Tribunal disposed of demands Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9. The decision of the Tribunal under its Awards Parts I and II in respect of demand Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 is not the subject of consideration before us. In respect of demand No. 6, the Tribunal rejected the demand regarding the Company being made to provide free transport facilities. However, the Tribunal directed the Company to pay an allowance of 15 paise per day to every employee who stays at a distance of five miles and above from village Atul. The said payment was made effective from Dec. 1, 1967. Here again a direction was given that the Company need not pay allowance to its workman who is either on earned leave or any type of leave authorised or otherwise. The Company desires in this appeal to have the direction given by the Tribunal under this demand set aside.

Reasoning: 20. The above observations have been quoted with approval by this Court in some of its earlier decisions. Therefore, there can be no doubt that an Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to make a proper and reasonable order in any industrial dispute. It should be borne in mind that the foundation of the principle of Industry-cum-region is that as far as possible there should be uniformity of conditions of service in comparable concerns in the Industry in the region so that there is no imbalance in the conditions of service between workmen in one establishment and those in the rest. The danger otherwise would be migration of labour to the one where there are more favourable conditions from those where conditions are less favourable.21. It is pertinent to note that though this Court in (1969) 19 Fac LR 46 (SC) declined to extend the benefit of lunch allowance to employees who had no occasion to go for out door work nevertheless it recognised in a limited measure the obligation of an employer to provide medical facilities for its workmen. The demand for provision for medical facilities made by the workmen was contested by the Company therein on the ground that making provision for medical facilities is the responsibility of the Government and not of the employer. Even on the basis that it is the obligation of the employer, it was further contended that medical expenses which a workman would ordinarily have to incur are looked after and taken into account when fair wages are settled. This Court accepted as correct the contention that the primary responsibility for providing medical facilities for citizens is that of the State. This Court also accepted the contention that while fixing fair wages medical expenses which may have to be ordinarily incurred by a workman will be taken into consideration. But on the basis that the expenses for medical facilities would have been taken into account in the fixation of wages only to a limited extent and as the State cannot discharge its full responsibility in the matter of providing medical facilities, this Court held that a Tribunal will have jurisdiction in a proper case to call upon an employer to shoulder a part of the burden regarding medical expenses incurred by his workmen in the interest of industrial harmony and good co-operative relations. We are emphasising the said decision which recognised an employer being made to shoulder a part of the burden in respect of medical expenses, as more or less the same principle will apply in the matter of an employer being asked to reimburse the workman at least to a limited extent regarding the transport expenses incurred by the latter for going to his place of work.22. We have already pointed out that in Atul village apart from the two Companies there is another concern also. Though Cynamid India Ltd. is in the pharmaceutical Industry in our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in having regard to the practice obtaining in that region on the principle of region-cum-industry when considering the claim of the workmen for payment of transport allowance. It is no doubt true that in the case of Cynamid India Ltd. that Company was already paying 15 paise per day to every one of its workmen as transport allowance and that amount has been raised by the Tribunal to 37 paise per day. It has also granted even to workmen living beyond three miles but less than five miles a sum of 12 paise per day. But the very fact that the Cynamid India Ltd. was paying even originally 15 paise per day was a relevant factor to be taken into account as the said industry was also in the same region and most of its employees were also coming from distant places like the workmen in the case of the two Companies before us. It should also be remembered that the Tribunal in the awards in question was not considering an isolated claim for payment of transport allowance. That demand was only one of the demands, which was being dealt with by the Tribunal along with various other demands such as revision of wage scales, dearness allowance etc. The Tribunal can certainly by expected to be aware of the fact, when it was fixing the wage scales and dearness allowance that it has also to adjudicate on a claim for transport allowance. Having due regard to this claim, it must have fixed the wage scales and dearness allowance. We have gone through the scale of dearness allowance fixed under the two awards and it is to be seen that complete neutralisation has not been awarded. The Tribunal has also proceeded on the basis that the workmen must bear, from and out of the wages earned by them, a part of transport expenses. It is only when the Tribunal found that the expense incurred by the workmen for transport was rather very high and excessive that it has afforded some relief. It the entire body of workmen come from distant places and they all have to incur heavy expenses for using transport, the question may pertinently arise whetherit is not a case for revision of wage scales or dearness allowance in such a manner as to include also this item of expense.The Companies have provided some accommodation in the village itself for about 25% of its workmen on a nominal rent. Some others are living near about the village itself and they have no necessity to spend any amount for transport. In respect of these two categories of workmen, there cannot be a general rise in the wages paid to them. On the other hand, the case of workmen who come from distant places, due to no fault of theirs stands on a different footing. It is not possible for them to cover the entire distance walking and they have necessarily to use some transport for coming to their place or work. Quite naturally, one can expect the workmen to choose only that type of transport which will cost them the minimum. Even if they choose the train service, which will be comparatively cheaper, they will have to incur additional expense for coming to their place of work and return home.It must be noted that though the claim was for payment of 80 paise per day per worker to cover the entire cost of transport to and fro, the Tribunal has awarded only a moderate sum of 15 paise which was the amount that was being paid by Cynamid India Ltd. originally. In the case of Atul Products Ltd. as against the claim made for an allowance of Rs. 15/- per month, for every workman, the Tribunal has allowed only 15 paise per day and that too on the days when the workman comes for duty. Similarly, in the case of Atic Industries Ltd. the demands were: (a) Rs. 20/- per month to be paid to every workman using State Transport Bus Service, (b) Rs. 15/- per month to be paid to every workman coming by cycle from places where State Transport Bus Service was not available: and (c) The workmen who come by train should be paid Rs. 10/- per month as train allowance. As against these varying demands, the Tribunal has only allowed 15 paise per day and that too on the days when the workman comes for work. Thus it will be seen that even on the basis that a workman staying at a distance of five miles or more comes for work for 30 days in a month the allowance he gets is only a sum of Rs. 4.50 p. under the award.In the circumstances mentioned above, it cannot be stated that the award of the sum of 15 paise per day is in any manner unreasonable or arbitrary. The payment has also been hedged in by the condition that the employer has to be satisfied that the workman is staying at a place five miles and over from Atul village and that it need not be paid on days when the workman is either on earned leave or any type of leave authorised or otherwise. Therefore, we are satisfied that the direction given by the Tribunal under demand No. 4 in Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1968 and demand No. 6 in Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1968 is justified.The Union in Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 1968 has asked for enhanced rate of transport allowance being given to the employee in Atic Industries Ltd. Its claim is that 80 paise has to be paid to every workman per day or in the alternative the allowance must be, as directed by the Tribunal in Cynamid India Ltd. All these aspects have been discussed by the Tribunal when it fixed the quantum in the case of Atic Industries Ltd. Though the Tribunal cannot impose any new obligation on an employer merely on the ground that the financial capacity of the employer is sound, nevertheless the Tribunal when imposing the new obligation has also to consider the capacity of the employer to bear the burden. In the case of Atic Industries Ltd. the Tribunal has held that it does not want to cast additional financial burden and that is why it has fixed the allowance at a very reduced scale. We see no error in this reasoning of the Tribunal and as such Civil Appeal No. 2086 will have to be dismissed.