Case: The Indian Oxygen Limited Vs. Workmen And Others

The reference was on six matters, namely, (i) wage scales, (ii) adjustments, (iii) increments, : (iv) classification, (v) designation of certain workmen, and (vi) merger of dearness allowance. The tribunal rejected the demands relating to increments and merger of dearness allowance. With respect to the other four matters referred to it, the tribunal fixed revised scales of wages and provided for the manner in which adjustments would be made. As to classification, the tribunal ordered that the employees would be classified by the appellant after consulting both the unions in an advisory capacity. It also changed the designation of plant-attendants to plant-operators.

Court's reasoning:
.We are of opinion that there is no force in- any of these contentions. There is no doubt that wage scales which were revised by the tribunal were fixed as far back as- 1949. Obviously, therefore, there would be a clear case :for, revision of wage-scales in 1962, for it is not, and cannot be, disputed that there has been considerable change in circumstances between 1949 andas the tribunal has pointed out, there has been an increase in the cost of living even since 1957. It has further pointed that dearness allowance at the best, may neutralise the increase in the cost of living fully in the, case of workmen drawing a basic wage of Rs.30/-; it does not neutralise the increase in the cost. of living in the case of those drawing above the minimum wage, and as the wage increases the neutralisation affected by dearness allowance becomes, less and less. Therefore, when cost of living has gone up since 1957, a case has been made out for revising wage scales in 1962. The tribunal; has further pointed out that there have been since 1949 a large number of awards and agreements in prosperous concerns like the appellant-company wherein higher wages have been fixed. It may be that the wage-scales fixed in the appellant-company in 1949 were on the high side as compared to other concerns of the same standing in that region. But if, as pointed out by the tribunal, the other concerns are now giving higher wages than they were giving in 1949 due either to agreements or to awards, wage-scales fixed in the appellant-company should also be revised in order to maintain it in the same leading position as it apparently held incharts in our opinion as prepared do not depict the correct position because the dearness allowance payable by the appellant-company is on a different basis from the dearness allowance payable in the concerns, which appear in these charts. The appellant-company apparently pays dearness allowance at the old textile scale but for all days in the month while the other companies which have been taken for comparison pay the revised textile scale which is apparently higher than the old textile scale for all days in the month which the appellant is paying. So, the comparison made in these charts is not very helpful in showing that the revised wage scales have made such changes in the wage structure in the appellant company as to put it completely out of line with comparable concerns. It appears to us that with the changes made in the wage scales all that has happened is that the appellant-company still maintains a lead in the matter of total wage packet as against the comparable concerns in the same way as it did: in, 1949. In the circumstances, we agree with the tribunal that a case had been made out for revising the wage scales even though in 1957 the then tribunal did not think it necessary to make any change in the wage-scales prevailing, in this company except in the case of Mazdoor I and Mazdoor II.3. As, to the contention that the tribunal compared the appellant-company with concerns which were really not comparable, it may be mentioned that at present the appellant is the only company of its kind carrying on business in Bombay. There was thus no comparable concern in its own line of business in that region. Therefore, the tribunal would be justified in looking for comparison at concerns nearly similar to thetribunal held that the oil refineries stood in a class by themselves. It also held that Greaves Cotton and Company Limited was a managing agency concern and was therefore not comparable.It also refused to compare the appellant-company with the Associated Cement Companies on the ground that it had no factory in Bombay but only its head office. The tribunal also was not prepared to compare the appeliant company with the Imperial Tobacco Company which was in an altogether different line of business. The tribunal was prepared to compare the appellant with the engineering firms which the appellant itself relied on except one concern which was considered by the tribunal to be too small. It seems to us therefore that for the purpose of comparison the tribunal rightly took into account practically the companies suggested by the appellant. The tribunal also mentioned some other companies which were indicated on behalf of the workmen, for example, the Indian Cable Company Limited, and the Automobile Products. These also cannot be said, , to be non-comparable though the are not quite as near the appellant-company as they engineering concerns which the appellant-, company relied on. In the main, however, it appears that the tribunal relied on the engineering concerns on which the appellant-company relied, though, as already indicated, it has given a slightly higher scale in some cases to the workmen of the apppellant company apparently in view of the fact that the appellant company was always a leading employer in the matter of wage-scales. We are therefore of opinion that the tribunal cannot be said to have made any mistake in the matter of taking into account comparablemay be pointed out that three of these mistakes were corrected by the tribunal later. So far as two of these corrections are concerned, namely, (i) carpenters, and (ii) Assistant fore-man, there appears to have been a slip inasmuch as the tribunal reduced the maximum for these workmen which was already prevalent, which of course it could not do. The third mistake that the tribunal corrected was with respect to cylinder weighers. There undoubtedly the tribunal made mistake inasmuch as it fixed wages for cylinder weighers which were even lower than Mazdoor I, though cylinder weighers always used to get more than Mazdoor I. That mistake was also corrected by the tribunal. One more mistake has been pointed out to us with respect to masons. In the case of masons, the grade demanded was (SCR at page 744) 60-5-110-7-1/2-140 while the existing scale was 60-4-100.The tribunal revised the scale toseems to us that this is due to a slip, and the learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the starting pay should be Rs.60/-. We therefore correct this Mistake and fix the grade of masons at 60-4-100-5-110. It is clear therefore that there Were three slips by, the tribunal and there was only one mistake with respect to cylinder weighers. That however, does not mean that the tribunal did not bestow that attention to the matter before it which it was expected to do. The tribunals award appears to be on the whole a careful one and it cannot be thrown over-board because of these, slips. We therefore see no force in the contention of the appellant with respect to wage scales and hold that the revised, grades introduced by the tribunal aremay, in this connection refer to French Motor Car Co. Ltd. v. Workmen ([1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16.), where the tribunal had left the fixation of individual workman into particular classified jobs to the management in consultation with the workmen and that was upheld by this Court. Generally speaking, the fixing of individual workmen in particular classified, jobs can best be done by the management in consultation with the union and it is only the disputed cases which may be referred, if necessary, to the tribunal. In the present case also, the tribunal has left it to the appellant to fix individual workmen into the various classified jobs after consultation with the unions. It is true that the tribunal has remarked that some of the Mazdoor I and Mazdoor II appear to it to be doing work of higher category but that is merely a general remark and it will be for the appellant to classify the workmen in consultation with the unions i.e. to fix each workman in particular classified jobs which already exist in this company and about which there. is no dispute. In the circumstances, the tribunals direction in the present case with reference to the second type of classification does not suffer from any infirmity,