Case: Clerks of Calcutta Tramways Vs. Calcutta Tramways Company Limited

1. This appeal is by special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, which modified the award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the matter of a dispute referred to it by the Government of West Bengal for adjudication with regard to the rates of dearness allowance for clerks and Depot cashiers employed by the Calcutta Tramways Coy. Ltd., numbering about 600, out of a total of 10,000 workmen. Disputes having arisen between the workmen of the Calcutta Tramways Coy. Ltd. (which may hereafter be called The Company) on the one hand, and the employers on the other, relating to the dearness allowance payable to the workmen, there were two previous awards, one dated May 16, 1947, by Sri S. N. Guha Roy, and the other dated October 27, 1948, by Sri P. K. Sircar. Both of these awards related to all the employees of the Company and not to the clerks and Depot cashiers alone. Subsequently a reference was made by the West Bengal Government of June 13, 1951, concerning a dispute relating to the dearness allowance of the workmen of the Company, excluding clerks and Depot cashiers. There was an award and an appeal, and in that appeal the Appellate Tribunal increased the dearness allowance by Rs.r workmen in the pay ranges below Rs. 50 and up to the pay range of Rs. 250 and by a flat rate of Rs. 5 in the higher pay ranges taking the cost of living index ofthe workmen class at 370 points2. In the present award, which relates to the clerks and the Depot cashiers alone, the Industrial Tribunal gave Rs.s dearness allowance for a pay range of Rs. 51 to Rs. 100 and provided for a progressive increase of Rs. 5 for each slab of Rs. 50 in the pay range. TheAppellate Tribunal increased the amounts so awarded by Rs.e than what was granted to the other workmen of the Company. The cost of living index for the middle class families had been fixed by an investigating body of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce during the relevant year at 382 points, whereas the index in the case of working class was fixed at 370 points. The increased amount awarded for the various pay ranges and shown in the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal which need not be repeated again, was founded on these cost of living indices though the amount was not the same as recommended by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce3. Before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, as well as the Industrial Tribunal, the claim put forward on behalf of the clerks and Depot cashiers was that the dearness allowance should be on the same rates as decided upon by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce of which the company is a member and no difference should have been made between the dearness allowance recommended by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and that to be awarded by the Industrial Tribunal. In fact, what was urged was that the recommendation of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce ought to have been accepted in its entirety for the reason not only that the Company is a first class member of the Chamber but also that the class of persons, namely in the middle classes for whom the recommendation was intended, includes clerks and Depot cashiers of the Company as well, and the same having been accepted by the Mercantile Tribunal which dealt with the dearness allowance payable to the employees of the mercantile firms in Calcutta, the Industrial Tribunal, as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal, should havefollowed the same. The learned Judges of the Appellate Tribunal held that thoserecommendations where made to the mercantile firms where the workmen consist practically of the clerical and subordinate staff as opposed to Tramways Company where the large percentage of workmen belong to other categories, the clerks and Depot cashiers being only a small minority, though they found that the cost of living index found by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce should be accepted as the criterion for awarding the increased dearness allowance in the case of the employees of the Company as well.

Reasoning:
7. It is difficult to hold that the middle classes in this country can be said to form a separate stratum of society even in a city like Calcutta having the same mode of life, the samenecessities, uniform requirements and comforts. There are different grades even among the middle classes and it is unwise to predicate the same degrees of comforts and necessities for everyone who is said to belong to the middle classes. Such being the case, to say that the clerks in the mercantile firms can be considered equal in all respects to the 6000 clerks and Depot cashiers of the Company, is an argument which cannot be accepted as sound8. The Labour Appellate Tribunal has not completely ignored the recommendations of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, for it is seen that in raising the amount awarded by the Industrial Tribunal the Appellate Tribunal has based its conclusion on the higher cost of living index in the case of middle class employees9. Such being the case, the point for consideration is whether any question of principle is involved, so that this court might interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Wide and undefinable with exactitude as the powers of the Court are (see Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal [[1955] 1 S. C. R. 941, 949.]), it is now well settled that generally the necessarys for this courts interference to set right decisions arrived at by Tribunals whose conclusions on questions of fact are final can be classified under the following categories, namely, (i) where the Tribunal acts in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it under the statute or regulation creating it or where it ostensibly fails to exercise a patent jurisdiction; (ii) where there is an apparent error on the face of the decision and (iii) where the Tribunal has erroneously applieds of jurisprudence. It is only when errors of this nature exist, that interference is called for. In the present case the appellants have not been able to show that there is any deviation from those principles. If the Tribunal below had failed to resort to a basic principle then something might have been said but what has been done is, that in computing the dearness allowance it has considered various methods and adopted one of them. That being the case, it is difficult to say that there is any question of principle at all.