Judgment Case ID: 2178

Judgment:
Appeal No. 634 of 1965. Appeal by special leave from the Award (Part 11) dated April 23	 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal	 Maharashtra	 Bombay in Reference (IT) No. 271 of 1962. H. R. Gokhale and I N. Shroff	 for the appellant. K. K. Singhvi	 R. section Kulkarni	 section C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh	 for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah	 J. This is an appeal against the Award	 April 23	 1964	 of the Maharashtra Industrial Tribunal	 Bombay (Mr. Meher) in reference (IT) 271 of 1962. The Award was given in a dispute between the Kamani Employees Union	 Bombay and the Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd. The Company is the appellant before us. The reference was occasioned by a demand raised by the Union on February 25	 1960 in relation to wage scales and classifications	 dearness allowance	 production bonus	 permanency for daily rated workmen and grades and scales of pay	 dearness allowance and abolition of marriage clause for monthly paid employees. At first a reference was made to a Conciliation Board by the Government on September 8	 1962. The conciliation was frustrated for some reasons and on December 14	 1962	 the Bombay Government acting under section 10(1)(d) of the referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. By the Award now under appeal	 some points were decided in favour of the Company and some others in favour of the work men. The workmen have not appealed and the Company has also confined this appeal to some of the points decided against it. We are concerned with a Company which is carrying on the business of melting and manufacturing all kinds of rolled products of non ferrous metals and alloys	 copper and copper based alloys	 such as sheets	 strips	 coils etc. According to the Company the process of manufacture	 unlike the general engineering industry	 involves only the melting of the non ferrous metals and casting them into suitable slabs for the subsequent processes of hot and cold rolling to alter their shape	 size and metallurgical properties. The product so wrought serves as a base raw	. material for making products such as automobiles	 telephones	 radios and other electrical gadgets	 etc. The Company claims that it cannot be described as a general engineering industry. The main contentions in this appeal concern the revision of wages and monthly pays and the fixing of wage scales and time scales in respect thereof	 respectively	 and the increase in dearness allowance by adopting a new system of calculation. The Company 466 also complains that the Award has been given retrospective operation entailing heavy burden upon it. In support of the above contentions the Company states that its financial capacity does not bear the revision either of the wages and pays on the one hand or the dearness allowance on the other. It submits that the Tribunal in revising the wages	 pays and ' the dearness allowance has followed wrong principles and ignored those laid down by this Court. of the argument in respects of wages to daily rated workmen and pays to monthly rated workmen is common and it will not be necessary to refer to the argument twice over in the course of this judgment. This is the first revision of wages and the dearness allowance in this Company during the last 20 years. The wage scales and the dearness allowance were fixed unilaterally to start with. The minimum basic wage was fixed at Rs. 30 per month or Rs. 1.16 per day which was the minimum settled by the Bombay Textile Standardization Award and the First Central Pay Commission for Government servants in or about 1950. The Tribunal has raised the minimum wage to Rs. 1.35 per day	 which is equivalent to a wage of Rs. 35 per month. The maxima have also been raised proportionately. Similarly		 in the case of monthly rated workmen the minimum monthly ' salary	 which was Rs. 60 for the lowest grade clerk	 has been raised to Rs. 85/ and the maximum has been increased in almost the same proportion. The Company contends that this increase is based upon wrong principles inasmuch as the wages and pays in this company have been compared not only with the companies operating non ferrous metals in the same way but with general engineering concerns and has taken an irrelevant factor	 namely	 the yield from incentive bonus into consideration	 has made wrong grades and unnecessary adjustment in making fitments without taking into account the financial burden thus involved and the capacity of the Company to bear it. We shall consider these submissions. In dealing with these contentions we shall begin by considering one contention which	 if accepted$ will cut at the very toot of the case for revision of wages. It has	 however	 no merit. The submission is that there is no change 'of circumstances justifying a revision of wages and pay scales or dearness allowance. It can hardly be maintained that wages fixed so far back do not need revision	 when	 as every one knows	 commodity prices have soared high	 the general level of wages has gone up and in some industries there have been two or three revisions already and in some others Wage Boards have been appointed to revise or fix wages. We can take judicial notice of these facts. In this Company no revision has taken place and the demand is	 therefore	. not unjustified. Before we deal with the other contentions it is necessary to make a few preliminary observations about the principles which 467 are to be followed. In questions of this type it is first desirable to consider what amount is necessary to maintain and even improve the workers ' standard of living	 how wages of the workers concerned compare with those paid to workers of similar grade and skill by other employers in similar or other industries in the region and what wages the establishment or industry can afford to pay. These are the fundamental principles which have to be borne in mind. The first	 however	 is a general inquiry into the structure of wages which it may not be necessary to examine elaborately each time because that inquiry is generally made independently of ' individual cases. The data is usually compiled by labour conferences and experts. The other two matters	 of course	 require attention. Fixation of a wage structure is always a delicate task because a balance has to be struck between the demands of social justice which requires that the workmen should receive their proper share of the national income which they help to produce with a view to improving their standard of living	 and the depletion which every increase in wages makes in the profits as this tends to divert capital from industry into other channels thought to be more profitable. The task is not rendered any the easier because conditions vary from region to region	 industry to industry and establishment to establishment. To cope with these differences certain principles on which wages are fixed have been stated from time to time by this Court. Broadly speaking the first principle is that there is a minimum wage which	 in any event	 must be paid	 irrespective of the tent of profits	 the financial condition of the establishment or the availability of workmen on lower wages. 	 This minimum wage is independent of the kind of industry and applies to all alike big or small. It sets the lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity. The second principle is that wages must be fair	 that is to say	 sufficiently high to provide a standard family with food	 shelter	 clothing	 medical care and education of children appropriate to the workman but not at a rate exceeding his wage earning capacity in the class of establishment to which he belongs. A fair wage is thus related to the earning capacity and the workload. It ' must	 however	 be realised that 'fair wage ' is not 'living wage ' by which is meant a wage which is sufficient to provide not only the essentials above mentioned but a fair measure of frugal comfort with an ability to provide for old age and evil days. Fair wage lies between the minimum wage	which must be paid in any event	 and the living wage	 which is the goal. As time passes and prices rise	 even the fair wage fixed for the time being tends to sag downwards and then a revision is necessary. To a certain extent the disparity is made up by the additional payment of dearness allowance. This allowance is given to compensate for the rise in the cost of living. But as it is 468 not advisable to have a 100%. neutralisation test it lead to inflation	 the dearness allowance is often a little less than 100% neutralisation. In course of time even the addition of the dearness allowance does not sufficiently make up the gap between wages and cost of living and a revision of wages and/or dearness allowance then becomes necessary. This revision is done on certain principles. These principles have been stated in more than one case of this Court. The Company	 however	 relies upon Novex Dry Cleaners vs Its Workmen(1). The principles laid down in that case have been accurately summarized in the head note thus : industry to bear the burden of the said wage scale is a very relevant and very important factor. Before comparing the establishment in question with other establishments engaged in the same trade in the region	 it would be obviously necessary for the industrial tribunal to compare the establishments in respect of their standing	 the extent of the labour force employed by them	 the extent of their respective customers and what is more important	 a comparative study should be made of the profits and losses incurred by them for some years before the date of the award. It is well known that in fixing the wage structure on a fair basis ; an attempt is generally made in assessing the additional liability imposed on the employer by the new wage structure and trying to anticipate whether the employer would be able to meet it for a reasonably long period in future. Where the award simply fixed the wage scales on the assumption that the establishment in question was comparable to the other two establishments in the same region without considering the aspects mentioned above	 it must be set aside. In the consequence	 the industrial tribunal was directed to reconsider the question of fixation of wage scales in the light of the principles mentioned supra. The Company contends that many of the matters here stated have not been considered and the Award being defective for that reason deserves to be set aside. This is not a proper approach. The observations no doubt lay down the principal guide lines but they are not intended to operate with the rigidity of a statutory enactment. The Court has indicated what lines of inquiry are likely to lead to the discovery of correct data for the fixation of fair wages in the sense explained above. In this task all the relevant consi derations must enter but fruitless inquiries into matters of no parti (1) 469 cular importance to a case are hardly to be insisted upon because rather than prove of assistance	 they might well frustrate the very object in view. Each case requires to be considered on its own facts. In the case before us	 all relevant circumstances have	 in our opinion	 entered the determination	 and it has not been shown to us that any other circumstance could or should have been considered. In fact the argument was that the tribunal considered some irrelevant things and this has vitiated the finding. We shall. now consider the specific objections. The Company has a capital of Rs. 40	00	000. Its sales in 1957 58 to 1961 62 increased from Rs. 1	81	18	873 to Rs. 2	31	50	485 and its profits in 1962 63 were of the order of Rs. 28 lakhs	 excluding Rs. 51 lakhs for depreciation and Rs. 2 lakhs for managing agency commission. The burden of the increased wage bill will not be more than 1/10th of its net profits	 to say nothing of some other savings by way of reduction of income tax. The tribunal held that the burden could be borne and we agree. One part of the inquiry	 namely	 the capacity to pay the increased wage bill was satisfied. The next part of the inquiry involved the application of the principle of industry cum region. This principle is that fixation or revision of scales of wages	 pays or dearness allowance must not be out of tune with the wages etc. ;prevalent in the industry or the region. This is always desirable so that unfair competition may not result between an establishment and another and diversity in wages in the region may not lead to industrial unrest. In attempting to compare one unit with another care must be taken that units differently placed or circumstanced are not considered as guides	 without making adequate allowance for the differences. The same is true when the regional level of wages are considered and compared. In general words	 comparable units may be compared but not units which are dissimilar. While disparity in wages in industrial concerns similarly placed leads to discontent	 attempting to level up wages without making sufficient allowances for differences	 leads to hardships. It is complained that the Tribunal	 has done exactly the op posite	 namely	 that it has compared dissimilar concerns and not compared similar ones. What the Tribunal has done is to compare the Kamani Metals & Alloys (appellant Company) with the Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. and the Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. The appellant Company does not object to the first but to the second as it deals with non ferrous metals and alloys and does not require engineering process in its manufacture. For the same reason a comparison with Alcock Ashdown an( Co. and Richardson and Cruddas & Co. is objected to. On the	 other hand	 it is submitted that another company Devidayal Metals Industries Ltd.	 Bombay was a comparable concern. 470 Both sides agree that a comparison with the Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. was proper. As regards Devidayal it is clear from the records that it is a much smaller concern and does not furnish a just basis for comparison The scales of pay existing in it are considerably lower than the existing scales in many instances. As regards Kamani Engineering Corporation it is necessary to consider a few facts. In 1951 a common award was given in respect of Kamani Engineering Corporation and the Kamani. Metals and Alloys. In 1958 the demand for revision of dearness allowance was rejected by a common award. This time too the charter of demands in respect of the Kamani Engineering and Kamani Metals & Alloys was the same and given within a few days of each other. These references were first pending before Mr. T. Bilgrani but as he had 551 references pending before him five references in respect of the Kamani group of industries were withdrawn from him and made over to Mr. Meher. The references were heard together. The award in the Kamani Engineering was rendered on 27th February	 1964 and that in Kamani Metals & Alloys on 23rd April	 1964. Many of the exhibits were common and the two awards refer to these common exhibits. In these circumstances	 the comparison was not inadmissible. The principle of fixation of wages and dearness allowance was stated by this Court in these words decisions is that in applying the	 industry cum region formula for fixing wage scales the tribunal should lay stress on the industry part of the formula if there are a large number of concerns in the same region carrying on the same industry ; in such a case in order that production cost may not be unequal and there may be equal competition wages should generally be fixed on the basis of the comparable industries	 namely	 industries of the same kind. But where the number of industries of the same kind in a particular region is small	 it is the region part of the industry cum region formula which assumes importance. . (1). In dealing	 therefore	 with only one comparable concern it was open to take into consideration the conditions existing in engineering concerns	 particularly those in Kamani Engineering Corporation	 which belongs to the same group and there is thus affinity between them. We were taken through the comparative charts showing the scales of wages in these concerns and pointed out the differences particularly those operating to the disadvantage of the appellant Company. That some differences are bound to be there because (1) Greaves Cotton & Co. vs Their Workmen [1964] 5 S.C.R. 362: 	 346. 471 of many imponderables that go into the fixation of wages	 goes without saying. We are	 of course	 not expected to go into the matter over again in the appeal. An appeal against an award brought by special leave is not an appeal as of right. It is not intended to be an appeal on every ground of fact and of law unless this Court considers it fit to examine the matter from any special angle Before a party can claim redress	 it must show that the award is defective by reason of an excess of jurisdiction or of a substantial error in applying the law or some settled principle or of some gross and palpable error occasioning substantial injustice. An industrial adjudication by reason that it is an award cannot be assailed because some other person would have given a different award or that elaborate reasons have not been given. We considered the comparative charts carefully and on the whole	 we are satisfied that the scales of wages as fixed by this Award when compared with those existing in Indian Smelting	 when they are high	 are not so high as to merit special comment or interference. Sometimes they are lower. It remains	 however	 to consider the case from the angle of the scales of wages existing in Kamani Engineering Corporation. In dealing with the scales of pay in comparison with those existing in Kamani Engineering Corporation the Tribunal observed that higher wages were being fixed in the Kamani Metals & Alloys because the yield from incentive bonus in the Kamani Engineering Corporation was between 20 to 30% of the wages and the dearness allowance whereas in this Company it was abnormally low. Mr. Gokhale contended that the yield from incentive bonus is an irrelevant factor to take into account and observed that if persons could get higher wages by not earning incentive bonus	 the result might be a disincentive to work at all. Speaking generally	 his objection is Tight to a certain extent. But it is not right in the circumstances of this case. The Company has since 1949 introduced a scheme of wage incentive. There is no straight piece rate system under which the worker is paid a fixed amount for each unit of out put. There is a fixation of average production for a whole group and not for the individual worker. The target in the melting section is fixed at 5000 cwt. and 1.5 %	 on every additional 300 cwt. is fixed as bonus. Other sections have different targets and different percentages. A similar scheme also exists in the Kamani Engineering Corporation. What has happened is that the Tribunal in fixing scales of wages in the reference from Kamani Engineering fixed lower rates because it was of the opinion that quite a substantial sum was earned in that establishment by way of incentive bonus. When the Tribunal came to decide the present reference it recalled that lower wages were fixed in the Kamani Engineering Corporation case because of the yield from incentive bonus. It	 therefore	 ascertained the yield in the Kamani 472 Metals & Alloys and finding it low fixed the wages at the proper level unaffected by consideration of incentive bonus. This really means that proper wages were fixed in the Kamani Metals & Alloys with out being influenced in any way by the yield from incentive bonus although in the case of Kamani Engineering Corporation lower wages were fixed	 because the yield from incentive bonus was very high. In these circumstances	 we are of the opinion that the wages in the present case 'have not really been influenced by considerations of yield from incentive bonus whatever may be said of Kamani Engineering Corporation. It was next contended that there is no case made out for ad justment of the workmen in the new time scale after granting them one additional increment after every three years ' service and two additional increments after five years ' service. The principle on which a point to point adjustment is sometimes departed from and increments are granted was stated in some cases of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to only one of them. In Hindustan Times	 Ltd. vs Their Workmen(1)	 the ' question of adjustment of existing employees into new scales was considered. It was observed as follows : It may. well be true that in the absence of any special circumstances an adjustment of the nature as allowed in this case by allowing special increment in the new scale on the basis of service already rendered may not be appropriate. Clearly	 however	 in the present case the. tribunal took into consideration in deciding this question of adjustment the fact that it had been extremely cautious as regards increasing the old wage scales. Apparently	 it thought that it would be fair to give some relief to the existing employees by means of such increase by way of adjustment while at the same time not burdening the employer with higher rates of wages for new incumbents. In these circumstances	 we do not see any justification for interfering with the directions given by the tribunal in the matter of adjustments. " In this case also the fixation of scales has been very cautious. The increase from Rs. 1.16 to Rs. 1.35 in the lowest category is not very high considering that these wages had existed for 12 years before they were so adjusted. Similarly	 the starting wage in all the other three categories cannot be considered to be very high. The same is the case with monthly rated workmen. The annual increment is not unduly high and in these circumstances it cannot be said that the Tribunal was in error in departing from a point to point adjustment. to grant one or two increments	 based on the (1) [1964] 1 S.C.R. 234	 249: 115. 473 length of service. The discretion was exercised on sound judicial lines. It was finally contended that the Tribunal was in 'error in making the Award retrospective from October 1	 1962	 when the reference was made on December 14	 1962. This objection has no force. In the charter of demands the workmen had claimed retrospective revision from July 1	 1961. The matter was referred to the Board of Conciliation on September 8	 1962. When conciliation was frustrated because of the arrest of some of the workers of the Union under the Defence of India Rules	 the present reference was made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal could have easily chosen September 8	 1962 but chose an intermediate date to be fair to both sides. In our judgment	 the choice of October 1	 1962 by the Tribunal cannot be characterised as either illegal or unfair. The question of incentive bonus revision was not mooted before us and the direction that incentive bonus should be calculated on the new scale from 1st January	 1964 is more in favour of the employers than the workmen and no grievance can be made about it. This brings us to the question of the monthly rated workers. Most of the points which we have discussed in relation to the daily rated workmen are common. We have seen the scales which have been fixed and compared them with the rates obtaining in Indian Smelting and the Kamani Engineering and other concerns and are satisfied that they have not been put so high as to merit interference at our hands. It is	 however	 contended that the Tribunal has gone beyond the Reference inasmuch as the Reference was in respect of special categories of monthly rated employees by designation but the Tribunal has fixed the new scales not only for those workmen but for all clerical and other workmen which were classified as Grades A	 B	 C and D in 1950. It is true that the Tribunal has not only fixed the new scales for those categories of monthly paid employees who were named in the order of reference but has also provided that those scales shall apply to clerks in the A	 B	 C and D Grades. It is	 however	 clear that even the monthly paid employees mentioned by name belong to one category or another. in the Grades A to D. It would have been highly invidious if some persons in the Grades were to receive more pay than the others in the same Grade. The Award	 therefore	 treats the Reference as referring to the 4 Grades although only some of the class who go by special designations in each Grade have been mentioned. The intention	 however	 was to have a general revision of the scales of payment to all workers paid monthly and the Tribunal was	 therefore	 right in not reading the Reference as restricted to only a few classes. By doing so the Tribunal has avoided further industrial unrest and disputes and has really given effect to the underlying object of the reference. 474 This brings us to the last question which is related to the dearness allowance payable to the monthly rated workmen. Previous to the present Award the dearness allowance was payable in this company in the following manner : "On the 1st Rs. 100 (upto Rs. 100) 60 per cent with a minimum of the D.A.paid to the Textile Operatives by the Bombay Mill owners Association. On the 2nd Rs. 100 (upto Rs. 200) 20 per cent of the 2nd hundred rupees. On the 3rd Rs. 100 (upto Rs. 300) 15 per cent of the 3rd hundred rupees. On the 4th Rs. 100 (upto Rs. 400) 10 per cent of the 4th hundred rupees. On the 5th Rs. 100 (upto Rs. 500) 10 per cent of the 5th hundred rupees. On every hundred above Rs. 500 of 5 percent of basic every hundred rupees. The above percentage of dearness allowance	 is applicable when the Bombay Cost of Living Index rests between 311 to 320. Variation in the above percentage to be allowed per 10 point movement in the index. First slab 3 per cent of dearness allowance ; 2nd slab 1 1/2 per cent of dearness allowance; 3rd slab 1 per cent of dearness allowance ; 4th slab 3/4 per cent of dearness allowance and the last slab 1/2 per cent of the dearness allowance." In the Award this has been altered to a scheme which is as follows On the first Rs. 100 basic pay (upto Rs. 100) 60% On the second Rs. 100 basic pay (upto35% of the 2nd 100 Rs. 200) rupees. On the third Rs. 100 basic pay (upto15 % of the 3rd 100 Rs. 300) rupees. On the Rs. 301 basic and above10 % of the balance. NOTE The minimum dearness allowance will be the revised textile scale. The above percentage of dearness allowance is applicable when the Bombay Consumer Price Index is between 311 and 320. Variation per 10 point movement in the index should be as follows 475 First slab of Rs. 100 basic pay 5 % (e.g. dearness allowance will be 65 % of basic pay when index is between 321 and 330). Second slab of 100 basic pay 1 1/2% Subsequent slabs 1 %". It is contended that linking the dearness allowance	 after the consumer price index 321 to wages has made a departure from the fixation of dearness allowance fixed in tie Kamani Engineering Corporation in which	 under the same circumstances	 the percentage after the consumer price in 0 321 is that of the dearness allowance and not of the basic salary. On the other side	 we were shown a number of awards in which dearness allowance has been fixed in the same manner as by this Award. It appears that the case of Kamani Engineering was treated as a special case because the incentive bonus there was yielding a third of the total earnings of the workmen and it was considered that if the dearness allowance was also raised then a very great burden would be thrown upon the employer by reason of the incentive bonus. We cannot	 therefore	 use the precedent of the award in the Kamani Engineering Corporation because of these special facts. We are satisfied that in many other companies dearness allowance has been ordered to be calculated in the same manner as has been done by this Award and we see no reason	 therefore	 to interfere. For these reasons we find no force in this appeal. It fails and will be dismissed with costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.

Summary:
The award of the Industrial Tribunal in an industrial dispute between the appellant company (manufacturing products of non ferrous metals and alloys) and its workmen	 was challenged in appeal to this Court on the following grounds: (1) There was no change of circumstances justifying a revision of Wages	 pay scales and dearness allowance	 (2) while making such revision by its award	 many of the matters stated in the judgment of this Court in Novex Dry Cleaners vs Its Workmen	 were not considered by the Tribunal; ' (3) the Tribunal 'had com. pared dissimilar concerns and not compared similar ones; (4) the Tribunal took into account an irrelevant factor	 namely	 the yield from incentive bonus; (51 no case was made out for adjustment of the workmen in the new time scale after granting them one additional increment after every 3 years service and two additional increments	 after 5 years ' service (6) the Tribunal was in error in making the award retrospective from 1st October 1962	 when the reference was made to it only on 14th December 1962; (7) the Tribunal had gone beyond the reference inasmuch as the reference was in respect of special categories of monthly rated employees by designation	 whereas the Tribunal had fixed the new scales of pay not only for those workmen but for all clerical and other workmen who were classified as Grades A	 B	 C	 and D; and (8) the linking of dearness allowance	 after the consumer price index 321	 to wages	 has made a departure from the fixation of dearness allowance fixed in another concern	 where the percentage was that of the dearness allowance and not of the basic salary. HELD : In an appeal brought by special leave against the award	 before a party can claim redress	 it must be shown that the award was defective by reason of an excess of jurisdiction	 or of a substantial error in applying the law or some settled principle	 or of some gross and palpable error occasioning substantial injustice. [471 A C] (1) There was no revision of wages or dearness allowance in the last 20 years		 even though commodity prices level of wages had gone up	 and there had in some industries	 while in some revise or fix wages. There a revision was justified. [466 F 14] (2) In order to make the fair wage meet the increase in the cost of living dearness allowance is paid to make up the disparity to a certain extent. When	 in course of time	 it is found that it is not sufficient	 because of a further increase in the cost of living	 a revision of wages and dearness allowance becomes necessary. This Court in its decisions has merely laid down the principal guide lines to be followed in industrial adjudica 464 tion. The various observations are not intended to operate with the rigidity of a statutory enactment. Each case must be considered on its own facts and only relevant circumstances should enter into the determination of the wage structure. The fundamental principles to be considered are: (a) how the wages of the workers concerned compare with those paid	 to workers of similar grade an( skill by other employers in similar or other industries in the 'region	 and b) what wages the establishment or industry can afford to pay. In the present case	 taking into account the increase in its net profits and the fact that the burden of the increased wage bill would not be more than 1/10th of the net profits	 the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant had the capacity to pay the increased wage bill. [467 B C	 H; 468 A B	 G H; 469 A D] (3) The Tribunal compared the appellant company with four engineering concerns. One of them belonged to the same group of industries as the appellant. There were common awards in respect of both of them. Further	 there was an award given at the same time by the same Tribunal in the connected concern also	 the charter of demands being the same as in the appellant company and based on several common exhibits. Since the number of industries in the region was small	 it was open to the Tribunal to take into consideration the conditions existing in the engineering concerns in the region	 particularly those in a concern where there is affinity	 even though the appellant company could not be described as a general engineering industry. Smaller concerns	. where the scale of pay is considerably lower	 do not furnish a just basis for comparison. [470 A	 B	 D. F G] Greaves Colton & Co. vs The Workmen	 ; 	 followed. (4) The Tribunal fixed lower wages in the reference relating to the connected concern	 because	 a substantial ment by way of incentive bonus. But in the case of the appellant company	 finding the yield from incentive bonus	 low	 the Tribunal fixed the wages at the proper level without considering the yield from incentive bonus	 that is	 without being influenced by it in any way. [471 E	 G H; 472 A B] (5) In the present case the fixation of scales of pay has been very cautious	 the starting wage and the annual increment were not high	 and therefore	 it cannot be said that the Tribunal was in error in departing from point to point adjustment in granting increments based on the length of service. [472 G H] Observations in Hindustan Times V. Their Workmen	 [1964] 1 S.C.R. 234 at p. 249	 followed. (6) In view of the facts that the workmen demanded retrospective revision from 1st July 1961	 and that the matter was referred to the Conciliation Board in 'September 1962	 the choice of 1st October 1962 by the Tribunal cannot be characterised 'as either illegal or unfair. [473 C] (7)The monthly paid employees mentioned by name in the order of reference belong to one category or another in the Grades A to D. The intention was to have a general revision of the scale of payment to all workers paid monthly; otherwise	 it would have been invidious for some persons in the same Grade to receive more pay than others. The Tribunal was therefore right in treating the	 reference 'as referring to all the four Grades and not reading it as restricted only to a few classes. [473 F H] (8) There have been a number of awards in which dearness allowance was fixed in the same manner as by the present award. The award in the connected concern could not be used as a precedent. 	 because of the special 'facts ' obtaining in that concern. [475 C	 E] 465