Case: Workmen of M/s. Indian Turpentine &amp; Rosin Co. Ltd Vs. M/s. Indian Turpentine &amp; Rosin Co. Ltd. Bareilly

2. The workmen claimed that scales and grades of different categories of workers should be fixed. The Tribunal was however of opinion that the reference as made did not authorise it to fix any scales or grades of wages but that it related only to increase over the existing minimum wages. After considering the rival contentions as regards the minimum rates which should be fixed, it fixed daily rates for unskilled workers at 12 annas per head; and forworkers at one rupee per head; for skilled workers it thought no revision was called for as regards their minimum daily rate. For monthly workers it fixed the minimum wage for unskilled workers at Rs.ed workers at Rs. 40/and for skilled workers at Rs.On a consideration of the evidence and on a result of personal inspection it came to the conclusion that there was no highly skilled worker employed in the concern. Accordingly it fixed no minimum wages for highly skilled workers. The workmen have appealed.

Reasoning:
6. In our opinion, there is no substance in this argument. If the dispute was only on the question whether the present rates should be increased it would not have been necessary to use the word "revision" and it will be more proper to say whether the existing rates need to be raised. There were the existing rates of basic wages. Assuming they were not time scale wages there is no reason to think that the dispute could only be whether these present rates of wages should be raised. The dispute could very well be whether the existing rates should be substituted by time scale rates. The word "revision" used in the reference aptly includes this question. Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, a time scale should be introduced or not is for the Tribunal to decide; but there is no warrant for saying that the words used in the reference........."whether the existing rates of basic wages.....need any revision ......." Do not authorise the Tribunal to consider the question at all.7. Besides, it is conceded that under the present system of wages workmen in the same categories drawn different wages and that this disparity is due partly to their respective lengths of service. It is true that the increments in wages due to the length of service is at present at the sweet will and pleasure of the respondent; but even to there is a scale of wages with increments in operation at present. Its revision would mean putting the said wage scale on a rational basis, and that is what the appellants demand. In our opinion, such a demand is clearly included in the terms of reference.8. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has erred in thinking that the reference as made did not authorise it to introduce time scales of wages. It is necessary therefore to remand the matter to the Tribunal below forof the question on the basis that it is open to it to fix time scales of wages if it thinks fit and proper.9. In view of this decision on the first contention raised we think it unnecessary and indeed undesirable to consider the other contentions that have been raised before us. In fixing time scales of wages if it so thinks fit the Tribunal will undoubtedly have to fix a minimum as the starting rate for each time scale. The question of this starting rate will have to be considered and decided as part of the bigger question as to hat the time scale shouldminimum, the maximum, as also the rate of increment. In deciding these questions the Tribunal will undoubtedly take into account all relevant considerations including, inter alia, the financial capacity of the respondent concern, as well as the rates paid by any comparable concerns in the same region. We express no opinion one way or the other on the other contentions raised before us including the contention that the Tribunal erred in thinking that the respondent concern was slightly inferior in financial prosperity than the other two concerns, viz., Wimco and Katha factories with which it thought this concern comparable. All these questions should be considered by the Tribunal afresh.10. Both the parties prayed that they might be allowed to adduce fresh evidence before the Tribunal. We see no objection to this. Both the employer and the workmen should be allowed proper opportunity to adduce evidence and the Tribunal should decide the matter in accordance with law and in the light of our decision that it is open to it to fix time scales of wages, after considering the evidence already on the record as also the evidence that may be adduced hereafter.