Case: Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company, Limited Vs. Its Workmen

2. The appellant is a public limited company having amongst its various industrial undertakings a group of textile mills known as Delhi Cloth Mills, A, B and C. The first of these disputes is concerned only with the B mill. Prior to 1930 only plain cloth was manufactured in this mill. Two plain looms were the normal assignment of each weaver for making such cloth. In 1930 the appellants began to manufacture Turkish towel also in the B mill on some of the plain looms by equipping these looms with the necessary equipment for such manufacture. The normal assignment of each weaver in making Turkish towel was however one such loom. Thefor Turkish towel looms were fixed at a higher figure than those for ordinary looms. No dispute arose about the wages of these weavers up to the year 1956. In that year the management started allotting two Turkish towel looms to some weavers and to some one Turkish towel loom and one plain loom. When this was started, the management stopped paying the workmen in full according to the oldbut started making certain deductions. Twelve and a half percent of theearnings was deducted in the case of weavers attending to two Turkish towel looms and one ordinary in the case of weavers attending on one Turkish Towel loom and one ordinary loom. The appellants case is that they were entitled to make these deductions under the Bombay scheme of standardizedwhich had been accepted by an agreement between the appellants and their workmen in February 1949 with regard to standardization of wages in all occupations. The scheme, it has to be mentioned, proceeds on the basis that two looms are the normal assignment of one weaver, but provides that when three or four or six looms were assigned to any weaver, theshould be reduced; the reduction would bewhen the assignment was of three looms;when the assignment was of four looms andwhen the assignment was of six looms. No provision in terms was made in this scheme for Turkish Towel looms. The appellants case, however, is that as the normal assignment for Turkish Towel looms in one loom per weaver the Bombay scheme is in terms applicable to weavers working on Turkish Towel loom on the equation that one Turkish Towel loom is equal to two ordinary looms. On that basis, the appellants argue, a weaver working on two Turkish Towel looms should be deemed to be working on four ordinary looms for the application of the scheme and his rates are liable to deduction byi.e., 25 percent instead of 12 percent reduction which the management has in fact applied. On the same assumption, the appellants case proceeds that the weaver on one Turkish Towel loom and one ordinary loom should be deemed to be working on three ordinary looms and that his rates are accordingly liable to a reduction byinstead of thethey have applied.The tribunal held that there is no justification for the application of Bombay scheme to Turkish Towel looms and accordingly held that the existing practice of making deductions in case of a weaver attending on Turkish Towel looms is unjust and unwarranted and that the management should pay back to all weavers from whose earnings such deductions have been made with effect from the date of reference.

Court's reasoning:
It seems to us however that as the Bombay scheme proceeds on the basis that the two looms are the normal assignment of one weaver, it can have no application to such looms of which the normal assignment is different. We can see no justification for introducing into the scheme a deeming provision that a person working on one Turkish Towel loom should be deemed to be working on two ordinary looms or that a person working on one Turkish Towel loom and one ordinary loom should be deemed to be working on three ordinary looms or that a person working on two Turkish Towel looms should be deemed to be working on four ordinary looms. There is no scope in law or commonsense for the introduction of such a deeming provision into the Bombayis not possible for us, therefore, to accept Mr. Sastris contention that thefor Turkish Towel looms are liable to deduction because improvements have been introduced by the management. Incidentally, we may point out that if as a result of improvements made in the machinery the workmen are able to attend to more looms and then produce a larger number of towels, that can hardly justify any deduction in their wages when the wages are fixed on abasis. It is the very essence ofwages that the more the production by the workman, the proportionately larger would be his wages, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in thatis faintly argued by Mr. Sastri on the basis of a recommendation in Para. 1 of the Wage Board which has been accepted by the Government that for a period of five years from 1 January, 1960 no scheme for further revision of minimum wages should be made by either the management or the workmen. Mr. Sastri was constrained to concede, however, that this recommendation cannot in any way affect the present award made in a reference made on 24 November, 1955. We find no justification, therefore, for interfering with the tribunals award on this question of deduction from theearnings for weavers working on Turkish Towelis nothing to justify us in interfering with the findings based on evidence given before the tribunal.It is difficult to see, however, how in the other two matters the tribunal made an award in favour of the workmen. The claim for extra remuneration for having to foregorest intervals appears to be in substance a claim for the overtime payment. The tribunal has made a rather startling statement that these workmen are working continuously for 8 1/2 hours in a day. As there are only 24 hours in the day and night and there are three shifts working, it is obvious that none of the shifts work for more than 8 hours. The managements case is that the wages of these workmen are fixed having due regard to this fact that in view of the nature of their work they would be working for 8 hours at a stretch without therest interval admissible to other workmen. This appears to us to be extremely likely, and no evidence has been given on the side of the workmen to show that the wages were fixed on the basis that these workmen would have this6. The case that no such exemption was in force at the time of the award cannot therefore be allowed to be raised now. We are therefore of opinion that the power plant operatives are not entitled to any extra remuneration for having to foregorest interval.The dispute as regards creelers is whether the Bombay scheme of standardized wage rates has been implemented in respect of such creelers working on plain andwarping machines. There appears to be no dispute that theof the Bombay scheme as it was in force at the time of the agreement between the management and the workmen in 1949 is being implemented. The workmens case appears to be that when theof these creelers were revised in Bombay with effect from November 1955 the appellants were also bound to apply the revised rates to the creelers working in their Mills. The decision of this question depends on the terms of the agreement. All that we find stated in the agreement regarding this is in these terms :"With regard to the standardization of wages in all occupations, the Bombay standardization scheme is accepted in toto."7. Without anything more the agreement must therefore be held to be for the acceptance of the Bombay standardization scheme as it stood on the date of the agreement, viz., 27 February, 1949. It was sought to be argued on behalf of the workmen that the intention of the parties was that effect would also be given to any change that might take place after the date of the agreement. We are unable to find any force in this contention