Case: Workmen of M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited Vs. M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited

2. In the Weaving Department of the respondents Mills a number of looms are divided into lines, each line having 52 to 56 looms. It appears that there was in existence, prior to the dispute, asystem of working for the weavers so that there was one weaver for half the number of looms in a line, and for the whole line there was one line Jobber or Line Mistries. The dispute is in respect of 40 Line Jobbers who work in lines Nos. 3 to 32, the work being done in three shifts. A rationalisation scheme based upon the Sampurnanand Award was introduced which gradually replaced thesystem instead ofsystem and as from May l, 1965, thesystem completely replaced the previous system. It may also be mentioned that the basic earnings of the Line Jobbers are calculated on the basic earnings of the weavers in their respective lines. On the introduction of the new system, there was a dispute between the management and the Line Jobbers in which it was alleged that the management had caused loss in their earnings by changing the method of calculation of their wages on the working of thesystem. This dispute was theof two References made to the Industrial Tribunal (I) at Allahabad in Adjudication Cases Nos. 57 and 88 of 1966. In these cases ultimately an agreement was arrived at between the parties and the Tribunal made an award in terms of the said agreement. The relevant portion of the award is as follows:"The employer shall calculate the basic earnings of Line Jobbers mentioned in the Annexure with effect from 1st May 1965 till September 30, 1967 at the rate of annasor 18 paise of the earnings of the weavers of particular line working on four loom system and pay the difference, if any."It is the case of the appellants that although the basic earnings were to be calculated for the period from May 1, 1965 to September 30, 1967, there was no indication in the settlement itself that the increased rate shall remain in force only upto September 30, 1967. Prior to this settlement the Mistries were getting basic wage at the rate of 2 annas per rupee of the aggregate wage of the weavers of their line and over and above this the Mistries were getting a payment of 121/2 per cent on the earnings so calculated. After the settlement, it is alleged, the management is only paying to the Mistries at the rate of 18 paise per rupee of the earnings of the weavers and has stopped payment of the extra amount of 121/2 per cent. It is in respect of this 121/2 per cent that another Reference was made which is the subject matter of this appeal.3. It is the case of the respondent that prior to the award in the previous Reference there was a complicated method of calculating the basic earnings of Mistries working onsets and according to this calculation the total basic wage of a Mistri for one fortnight was about Rs. 92.12, and that in order to make the method for working out the total basic wage of Mistries more easy the Industrial Tribunal (I) simplified the calculation keeping in view the addition of 121/2 per cent, which was agreed to by the parties on the suggestion of the Industrial Tribunal. According to this agreement a flat rate of 18 paise per rupee of the earnings of weavers was to be calculated for the Mistries which in effect substantially increased their earnings based onsystem. It is contended that the agreement filed in Adjudication Cases Nos. 57 and 88 of 1966 cannot be reagitated.

Court's reasoning:
5. It will be seen from the above extract that the 12 1/2 per cent interim increase which was recommended for almost all the industries in the United Provinces was based on thebasic wages and this suggestion was accepted by all the parties. In the case of piece rated workers like weavers, as there were large number of piece rates for different qualities of textile production for convenience of calculation, the increase of 12 1/2 per cent was added up separately for several years to arrive at the basic earnings to which were added Dear Food Allowance etc.on the earnings of the Mistries the 12 1/2 per cent was separately added and that became their basic earnings. Apart from the basic earnings payable to the employees they were also paid Dear Food Allowance and Rs.It submitted by the respondent that the wages of the Mistries were, however, worked out and their rates were applied on the total basic earnings of the weavers excluding the said 12 1/2 per cent increase, so as not to give double increase to the Mistries. In July 1952, in the piece rates payable to the weavers the said increase of 12 1/2 per cent in each of the said rates was merged with the result that the payment to the weavers on the production included the aforesaid 12 1/2 per cent increase which was therefore not required to be separately calculated. With regard to the Mistries, however, in order to exactly calculate their basic earnings, it became necessary first to arrive at the basic earnings of the weavers by excluding the said 12 1/2 per cent element which had been merged in their rates, and from the figure arrived at which represented the 1947 basic wages of the weavers the earnings of the Mistries were calculated at their rates and to the amount so arrived, 121/2 per cent was added which became the basic earnings of thecalculations of these two systems would facilitate a better understanding and in Annexure A of the Statement of the Case of the respondent, the two systems were illustrated by methods IV, V and VI which are as follows:"IV. Calculation with effect fromwhen instead of variable rates between10 per rupee payable to Mistries was increased. toV. Method followed to calculate the basic earning of Mistries after switch over to 4 loom system of working(a) On the same hypothesis the basic earnings of all weavers in a particular84.37, because weavers were paid on 3/4th of their production on 4 looms. Therefore to arrive at what would have been their wages if paid on 2 loom working so that the Mistries rate be applied correctly.is, therefore, contended by the respondent that in fact the Line Mistries are getting more than they were getting before when they were paid/2/of the basic earnings of the weavers plus 12 1/2 per cent. This is exclusive of the Dear Food Allowance and Rs. 8/which are being paid even now.Before the Industrial Tribunal the workmen examined one witness S. K. Srivastava and the respondent examined one R. S. Pathak. Referring to the evidence of these two witnesses the Tribunal pointed out that "when the extra payment of 12 1/2 per cent was made to the weavers it was also given to the Line Jobbers, but the wages of the latter were first calculated by excluding 12 1/2 per cent increase on the wages of weavers and after calculating the earnings thus an addition of 12 1/2 per cent was made. This had to be done because obviously the benefit of 12 1/2 per cent increase could not be given to the Mistries twice. The wages of weavers were revised after rationalisation and every weaver who was previously paid the wage for two loom working began to be paid on the basis ofworking. However, the number of weavers was reduced toand there was likelihood of the Mistries wages being reduced, as result of reduction in the number of weavers."In order, therefore, to compensate the Mistries, 12 1/2 per cent increase continued to be given to them which ultimately was superseded by the agreement arrived at in the Award Cases Nos. 57 and 88 of 1966, whereunder the wages of Mistries were increased from two annas per rupee to three annas or 18 paise per rupee. The agreement, however, did not specify that the addition of 12 1/2 per cent would continue to be given on the revised rate of wages to the Mistries. The workmen contend that since the Dear Food Allowance and Rs. 8/are being paid, this 12 1/2 per cent which is also an allowance should also be paid to them. What has to be considered is what the Line Mistries were getting before the settlement and what they are getting after the settlement. A calculation on the hypothetical basis which has been given by the respondent, which to our mind seems to illustrate two different methods under which the Mistries were being paid actually, would show that the Line Mistries are getting more at the rate of 18 paise per rupee even without the addition of 12 1/2 per cent. It is obvious, therefore, that the agreement between the parties took this into account and the omission to mention 12 1/2 per cent is significant in that it was not intended that a further 12 1/2 per cent was to be added to their basic wages. The statement Ext.will show that the average increase in the total earnings of Line Jobbers for the month of December 1967 was Rs. 10.83. The Tribunal observed that "Not a single Mistri or Line Jobber has come forward to say that he has suffered in earnings by reason of introduction of the new formula of calculation." The learned Advocate for the appellant, however, stated that the workmens cause was espoused by the workers Union and that fact itself is sufficient to show that the Line Mistries had suffered in their earnings. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention, nor is there any warrant for the calculation given by him that before thesystem was introduced the Mistries were getting Rs. 204/per month and after that they (were) getting less. The workmens witness admitted in Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1966 that the settlement was made after calculation of the basic earnings of a Line Jobber which means that the basic earnings of Line Jobbers were calculated and the new rate was fixed assuring that the Line Jobbers were not put to anylatter statement was made inand at any rate the statements made by the employers witness were not seriously challenged. Inand we do not see any ground for interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal which is amply borne out by the materials on record.