Case: Management of Kirloskar Electric Company Vs. Their Workmen

2. The appellant has a factory employing on an average 200 workers. On February 12, l968 a reference was made by the Government of Mysore or adjudication to the Tribunal of six points which were in dispute. Point No. 4 was whether all workers should be provided with a pair of uniforms and a pair of shoes per year. In the written statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal it was submitted that it was giving uniforms to its watchmen, drivers sweepers, canteen workers and such other workmen who were to be provided with protective clothing under the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was not considered necessary that uniforms should be issued to other classes of workers.

Court's reasoning:
We do not think that any case has been made out for interference by this court on the point which the special leave was granted. In the first place the Tribunal has taken into consideration not only the oral evidence but also all the other relevant circumstances. Secondly as laid down in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., v. The Workmen, (1967) 1 LLJ 114  =(AIR1967 SC 948) that Art. 136 is couched in widest terms, it is necessary for the Supreme Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction only in cases where awards are made in violation of the principle of industrial law requiring elucidation and final decision by the Supreme Court. In our judgment this case is not of the type which falls within those classes of cases which according to the law laid down by this Court calls for any interference.