http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD,BARODA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD, BARODA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/12/1968

BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA SHELAT, J.M. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1970 AIR   87            1969 SCR  (1) 174  1969 SCC  (1) 266

ACT: Industrial  dispute-Capacity  of employer to  pay  increased remuneration  relevant  if  demands for  more  than  minimum wages--Comparisons   with   remuneration   paid   by   other employers-When relevant-Public sector undertaking to produce and  supply electricity and prepare and evecute  development schemes for supply to new areas-If profits to be  calculated taking  account  of all its activities  or  only  commercial activities.

HEADNOTE: Over 9,000 employees of the Respondent Board, represented by seven Unions, demanded an increase in the dearness allowance payable to them, the payment of gratuity to some  employees, and  the calculation of pension payable to  other  employees after  adding  50% of the dearness allowance.   Six  of  the Unions  representing  the  employees  amicably  settled  the disputes with the Board which granted increases in  dearness allowance on the other demands being given up.  The  seventh Union declined to accept the settlement and the dispute  was eventually  referred  for  adjudication  by  the  Industrial Tribunal.   Before the Tribunal took up the  reference,  all except  466  of  the  employees  individually  accepted  the settlement. At  the  hearing of the reference it was  contended  by  the remaining employees through the seventh Union that the total wage packet including the dearness allowance claimed by them would only satisfy the requirement of a minimum wage and the Board’s   capacity  to  pay  the  increases  demanded   was, therefore,  irrelevant; furthermore, although the Board  was an  industry in the public sector, it must also be  made  to pay wages on the same basis as private sector employers; two electric  supply companies in ",the area were  paving  wages which  were much higher and there was no  justification  for refusing the demand for additional dearness allowance  which would  place  the  employees of the Board on  par  with  the ,employees of those companies. The  Tribunal  in  its  award  rejected  all  the  workmen’s demands.   It found that the demand for  increased  dearness allowance  was not confined to achieving a minimum wage  but

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

as  a result of its acceptance the wages would be above  the minimum wage.  The Tribunal also found that the Board having inherited  an accumulated deficit of over Rs. 2 crores  from its predecessor, the Bombay State Electricity Board,  having sustained heavy losses in its working and having  undertaken a further liability to pay increased dearness allowance,  it had  no capacity to undertake the further burden  of  paying about Rs. 49 lakhs per year as increased dearness  allowance or  to meet the other demands.  The Tribunal held  that  the position in the other two electric supply companies was  not comparable ’with the Board. In  appeal to this Court against the award it was  contended inter  alia,  that  the Tribunal was wrong  in  judging  the capacity of the Board after taking into account the  deficit of Rs. 2 crores which it had inherited from its predecessor; and that the financial capacity of the Board should 174 175 have  been  judged  only  on the  basis  of  its  commercial undertaking excluding the activities of the Board which were in the nature of national duties. HELD : The Tribunal had rightly rejected the demands of  the appellants. (i)  As  the appellants had failed to show that  they  would not  be receiving the minimum wage with their basic pay  and the  increased dearness allowance offered by the Board,  the financial capacity of the Board for acceding to the  demands made became a relevant consideration. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. The Workmen & Others, [1967] 1 S.C.R.  652 and The Hindustan Times Ltd. v.  Their  Workmen, [1964] 1 S.C.R. 234 referred to. Although  the  deficit  inherited  by  the  Board  from  its predecessor  could  not be treated as -a  revenue  loss  for determining  the Board’s financial capacity and was  in  the nature  of  a  capital loss, even this  loss  could  not  be completely  ignored.  Apart from this, it was clear ’On  the facts that during three years after its formation the Board- had incurred heavy losses of about Rs. 110 lakhs and it  did not, therefore, have the capacity of bearing the  additional financial   burden  involved  in  meeting  the   appellants’ demands. [179 D-F; 180 E] (ii) When  the Board was constituted under  the  Electricity (Supply) Act No.    54 of 1948 and was, by its constitution, charged with the general duty  of promoting the  coordinated development  of the generation, supply and  distribution  of electricity  within  the  State, its capacity  to  bear  the burden of paying wages to its employees had to be worked out after  taking  into  account all the  activities  which  the statute  required  it  to carry on.  The  running  of  power houses  was  only one of the branches of  those  activities. The  profit that the Board earned could only be  worked  out after including in the accounts all the expenditure incurred by  it  on  all  its  development  and  other  schemes   for distribution of electricity to consumers in urban and  rural areas. [181 B-D] While  an industry in the public sector was not exempt  from application of principles which apply to an industry in  the private sector and the respondent board must also be made to pay wages on the same basis as private sector employers  the additional burden in either sector for paying anything above a minimum wage can only be justifiably imposed in industrial adjudication  if the employer bad the capacity to meet  that burden. [181 E-F] The Tribunal had rightly held that neither of the other  two electric  companies were comparable with the  Board.   These two  companies  merely  carried on the  activity  of  direct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

supply  of electricity to consumers in the towns and  cities whereas the functions of the Board included the  development and  execution of schemes for supply of electricity  to  new areas. Williamsons  (India)  Private Ltd. v. Its Workmen  [1962]  1 L.L.J. 302, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2431 of 1966. Appeal  by  special leave from the Award of  the  Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat in Reference (IT) NO. 88 of 1962. 176 A.   S.  R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu,  Vineet Kumar, P. S. Khera and Bindra Thakur, for the appellants. I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava,  J.  This appeal, by special  leave,  is  directed against an Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, in  an industrial  dispute  referred  to it by  the  Government  of Gujarat  at  the  instance of the  appellants  who  are  466 workmen   of   the   Gujarat   Electricity   Board,   Baroda (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") represented by  the Saurashtra  Vidyut Kamdar Sangh (hereinafter referred to  as "the  Sangh").   The  dispute referred  to  related  to  two matters.   One  was the demand made in respect of  rates  of dearness  allowance to be paid to the workmen.   The  second demand  was that those of the workmen, to whom  Contributory Provident Fund or Employees Provident Fund scheme was appli- cable, should be granted gratuity equal to 15 days wages for every  year  of service in addition to  the  provident  fund benefits, while those workmen, who were entitled to  pension according  to  the pensionary scheme in force,  should  have their  pension  calculated after adding 50 per cent  of  the dearness allowance to the basic pay. The  facts needed to explain the second demand may first  be stated.    The  supply  of  electricity  in  the  State   of Saurashtra,  prior to the year 1954, was being  carried  out departmentally  by  the  Government of  Saurashtra  and  the workmen  employed  in the power houses  were,  consequently, Government  servants.   On  1st  July,  1954,  a  Saurashtra Electricity  Board was constituted to run the  power  houses and  the  employees  of the Electricity  Department  of  the Government were sent to work with the Saurashtra Electricity Board  on  deputation.  On 1st  November,  1956,  Saurashtra became a part of the Bombay State, hereafter the  Saurashtra Electricity Board was dissolved with effect from 1st  April, 1957  and its assets, liabilities, and employees were  taken over by the Bombay State Electricity Board.  The  employees, who  were originally in the service of the Saurashtra  State Government  were  entitled to the pensionary scheme  of  the Saurashtra  Government, while the Bombay  State  Electricity Board  had  a Provident Fund Scheme.  The  Saurashtra  State Government servants, on being taken over by the Bombay State Electricity   Board,  were  given  the  option   of   either continuing  in  their pensionary scheme, or of  joining  the Provident Fund Scheme of the Bombay State Electricity  Board in  which case the gratuity already accrued to them and  the equivalent  of  pensionary benefits were credited  to  their accounts.   Some  of the employees opted for  the  Provident Fund Scheme, while others continued under the pensionary 177 scheme.  Thereafter, on 1st May, ’1960, the State of  Bombay was   bifurcated  and  a  separate  State  of  Gujarat   was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

constituted; and, with effect from the same date, the  Board came   into  existence.   The  Board  ;took  over  all   the electricity,  power-houses ,and electricity schemes  in  the State  of Gujarat from the Bombay State  Electricity  Board, including  the  workmen  who  are  the  appellants  in  this -appeal.   The  assets and liabilities of the  Bombay  State Electricity  Board were divided between the Board,  and  the Maharashtra Electricity Board which was constituted for  the State   of   Maharashtra  which  came  into   existence   on bifurcation  of the Bombay State.  The Board continued  both the  Pensionary Scheme as well as the Provident Fund  Scheme for the employees in the manner they were in force when  the employees  were working under the Bombay  State  Electricity Board.   The employees, who were originally servants of  the State Government, had ceased to be government servants  with effect  from  1st  April, 1957 and later on  1st  May  1960, became  the  employees of the Board, so that  they  were  no longer  entitled  to the rights which the  State  Government might  subsequently  grant in respect of pension  under  the rules applicable to the government servants.  The result was that  even improvements granted in the pensionary scheme  by the  State Government to its employees did not enure to  the benefit  of  the appellants.  In  these  circumstances,  the Sangh  put forward the claim that the pension of  employees, who  were  governed  by the  pensionary  scheme,  should  be calculated  not  on  the basis of basic  salary,  but  after adding  50  per cent of the dearness allowance  to  it.   In respect  of  employees, who were governed by  the  Provident Fund Scheme, a second benefit of gratuity was claimed. The  demand  for dearness allowance was that  it  should  be linked   with  the  scale  prescribed  for   the   Ahmedabad Millowners’   Association.    The  workmen   demanded   that employees,  drawing  up to Rs. 50 as basic  pay,  should  be given   dearness  allowance  at  the  scale  applicable   to Ahmedabad Millowners’ Association, those drawing between Rs. 50  to  Rs. 100, D.A. at that scale plus Rs.  5,  and  those drawing above Rs. 100, dearness allowance at that scale plus Rs.  10.   This  demand was put  forward  before  the  Board originally on behalf of all the 9,208 employees of Class III and  Class  TV and some employees of Class I  and  Class  II whose salary was below Rs. 300 per mensem, who were  working either  in  the  Gujarat Region or  the  Saurashtra  Region. These employees were represented by seven different  Unions, one  of  which  was the Sangh who  represented  about  3,000 employees working in the Saurashtra region.  The six  Unions representing  the  employees working in the  Gujarat  region amicably  settled these disputes with the Board by  entering into agreements.  The 17 8 Board    gave   some   increase   in   dearness    allowance retrospectively  with effect from 1st October,  1961,  while the  second demand relating to gratuity and  calculation  of pension  after adding 50 per cent of the dearness  allowance was given up.  The Sangh declined to accept this settlement, whereupon  the  Board offered terms in accordance  with  the settlement  to  all the employees in the  Saurashtra  region individually.   Out of the total of 3,042 in the  Saurashtra region,  622 signed General Standing Order 56,  under  which the Board had made its offer to individual employees ,on the basis of the settlements arrived at before the reference  to conciliation.  1152  signed before the date of  the  failure report  by the Conciliation Officer; 2058 signed before  the reference  and  518 signed after the reference.   Thus,  the dispute,  after  the  reference,  became  confined  to   the remaining  466 employees who did not, on  individual  basis,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

accept the offer made by the Board.  The Tribunal considered this  dispute relating to the dearness allowance  raised  by these  employees through the Sangh as also the other  demand relating to gratuity and calculation of pension, and, by the impugned  Award, rejected these demands.  Consequently,  the workmen have come up in this appeal through the Sangh. The  main ground for rejecting these demands, on  which  the Award is based, is that the Board does not have the capacity to  meet  the additional expenditure that would have  to  be incurred  if  these  demands  are  acceded  to   Before  the Tribunal,  this aspect of the case was sought to be  met  by the  Sangh by urging that the total wage  packet,  including the dearness allowance claimed by them in the demand,  would only satisfy the requirement of a minimum wage, so that  the Board’s capacity to pay was irrelevant; but the award  shows that- the Sangh completely failed to provide any material to prove that the total wages, including the dearness allowance as offered by the Board on the basis of the settlements, are less  than  the  minimum wage.   This  Court,  in  Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. The Workmen & Others(1), recognised  the three  concepts of minimum wage, fair wage, and living  wage by  quoting the following passage from the decision  in  The Hindustan  Times Ltd. v. Their Workmen(2), and stating  that it briefly and neatly defined the three concepts : "In  trying  to  keep  true to  the  two  points  of  social philosophy   and   economic  necessities   which   vie   for consideration,  industrial  adjudication has set  to  itself certain  standards in the matter of wage fixation.   At  the bottom of the ladder, there is the minimum basic (1) [1957] 1 S.C.R. 652. (2) [1964] 1 S.C.R. 234.  179               wage  which  the employer  of  any  industrial               labour  must  pay in order to  be  allowed  to               continue  an industry. Above this is the  fair               wage, which may roughly be said to approximate               to  the need based minimum, in the sense of  a               wage  which is "adequate to cover  the  normal               needs  of the average employee regarded  as  a               human  being in a civilised  society".   Above               the  fair  wage is the  "living  wage"-a  wage               ’which  will  maintain  the  workman  in   the               highest state of industrial efficiency,  which               will enable him to provide his family with all               the material things which are needed for their               health  and  physical  well-being,  enough  to               enable him to qualify to discharge his  duties               as a citizen." These  decisions make it clear that, if the claim be  for  a minimum wage, the employer must pay that wage in order to be allowed  to continue the industry; and, in such a case,  the capacity of the industry to pay is irrelevant.  However,  if the  industry  is already paying the minimum wage,  and  the claim  is for fair wage or living wage, the capacity of  the industry  to pay is a very important factor, and the  burden above  the minimum wage can only be justifiably  imposed  if the  industry is capable of meeting that extra  burden.   On this  principle, in the present case, if the appellants  had succeeded  in showing that they were not receiving even  the minimum wage on the basis of the offer made by the Board  in line with the settlements arrived at with the other  Unions- and  individual  workmen members of the Sangh,  there  would have   been  full  justification  for  granting   additional dearness  allowance, ignoring the inability of the Board  to meet  that extra expenditure.  The finding of the  Tribunal,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

however,  is that the demand of the workmen is not  confined to  minimum wage, but that, as a result of the  demand,  the wages  will  be  above the minimum  wage.   Learned  counsel appearing  for  the  appellants before us  did  not  try  to contend  that the wages which were being paid by the  Board, were lower than the minimum wage, so that the claim for  the additional  dearness allowance cannot be considered  without taking  into account the capacity of the Board to  meet  the expenditure. So  far as the question of capacity  of the board to pay  is concerned, there is a clear finding by the Tribunal that the Board  is  running at heavy losses, so that it is not  in  a position to meet the extra expenditure of about Rs. 49 lakhs a  year which will be involved if the dearness allowance  is fixed as claimed by the Sangh.  The Tribunal has found  that the  Board, when constituted on 1st May, 1960, inherited  an accumulated  deficit ’of over Rs. 2 crores from  the  Bombay State  Electricity  Board.  In its own  working,  the  Board sustained a loss of over Rs. 29 lakhs between 1st May,  1960 and 31st March, 1961, and in 180 the two succeeding years 1961-62 and 1962-63, the losses in- curred were in the region of Rs. 39 lakhs and Rs. 41  lakhs. The Tribunal, thus, held that the total loss was to the tune of  Rs.  31 millions; and since the Board had  undertaken  a further  liability of over Rs. 6.75 lakhs a year  under  the settlements  and the offer to individual workmen,  it  could not  possibly undertake the further burden of  paying  about Rs. 49 lakhs per year as increased dearness allowance.   The Tribunal  was  also of the opinion  that,  considering  this financial condition of the Board, there was no justification for  introducing a gratuity scheme for workmen  governed  by the  Provident Fund Rules, nor was there  any  justification for  calculation  of pension on the basis of adding  50  per cent of the dearness allowance to the basic pay.  Mr. Chari, counsel for the appellants, challenged this decision of  the Tribunal  on  two grounds.  The first ground  was  that  the Tribunal  was wrong in judging the capacity of the Board  to pay  after  taking into account the deficit of  over  Rs.  2 crores  which  it  had  inherited  from  the  Bombay   State Electricity  Board;  and  the second  ground  was  that  the financial capacity of the Board should be judged only on the basis   of  its  commercial  undertakings,   excluding   the activities of the Board which were in the nature of national duties. So far as the first point is concerned, we think that  there is  some  force in the submission made by  learned  counsel. The  deficit  inherited by the Board  from  its  predecessor cannot be treated as are venue loss which will have  bearing on  its  paying  capacity.  Such  inherited  deficit  should really have been treated as capital loss; but even this loss cannot be completely ignored, because the paying capacity of an  employer has to take into account even  capital  losses. However,  even  if this accumulated deficit- of over  Rs.  2 crores is ignored, it is clear that, during the three  years after its formation, the Board itself incurred heavy  losses which  totaled to about Rs.  110 lakhs.  Consequently,  even if  that accumulated deficit is not taken into  account,  it cannot  be  held that the Board will have  the  capacity  of bearing  the additional financial burden to the tune of  Rs. 49  lakhs a year, if required to pay dearness  allowance  at the rates claimed by the Sangh. On the second point, we are unable to accept the  submission made  by learned counsel.  The Board was  constituted  under the Electricity (Supply) Act No. 54 of 1948, and section  18

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

of that Act lays down the duties of the Board.  By its  very constitution, the Board is charged with the general duty  of promoting  the  coordinated development of  the  generation, supply  and distribution of electricity within the State  in the  most efficient and economical manner,  with  particular reference to such develop- 181 ment  in areas not for the time being served  or  adequately served  by  any licensee.  In particular, the  duty  of  the Board  is to prepare and carry out schemes with the  objects mentioned   above;  to  supply  electricity  to  owners   of controlled  stations  and to licensees  whose  stations  are closed  down  under this Act; and to supply  electricity  as soon  as  practicable  to any  other  licensees  or  persons requiring  such supply and whom the Board may  be  competent under this Act so to supply.  When the Board was constituted to  carry out these duties, its capacity to bear the  burden of paying wages to its employees has to be worked out  after taking  into  account all the activities which  the  Statute requires  it  to carry on.  The running of Power  Houses  is only one of the branch of those activities.  The profit that the Board can be held to have earned can only be worked  out after including in the accounts all the expenditure incurred by it on all its schemes for distribution of electricity  to licensees  or  to consumers, whether in urban  areas  or  in rural  areas.   In fact, there is not even an  assertion  on behalf  of  the appellants-workmen that they  were  employed solely  in connection with a profitable undertaking  of  the Board and had nothing to do at all with the other activities which the Board is actually carrying on.  No doubt,  learned counsel  is right in urging on the basis of the decision  of this   Court  in  Hindustan  Antibiotics  Ltd()   that   the circumstance  that  the Board is an industry in  the  public sector  does  not exempt it from application  of  principles which apply to an industry in private sector, and the  Board must also be made to pay wages on the same basis as  Private sector employers.  This, however, does not advance the  case of  the  appellants,  because, even  in  a  private  sector, additional burden over and above a minimum wage can only  be justifiably  imposed  in  industrial  adjudication,  if  the employer  has  the capacity to meet that  burden.   In  this case,  the Tribunal has refused to grant the demand  of  the appellants  not on the ground that the Board is an  industry in  public sector, but on the ground that it does  not  have the capacity to pay.  That capacity has rightly been  judged on  the  basis of all the undertakings being worked  by  the Board. The Tribunal, after holding that there was no  justification for  granting the demands of the workmen because  the  Board had  no  capacity to bear the additional  burden,  proceeded further  to examine whether the Board’s existing  scheme  of payment  of dearness allowance was reasonable and took  into account various factors for arriving at its finding that  it could  not be held that the terms offered by the Board  were unreasonable.   In this connection, reliance was  placed  on behalf  of  the  appellants on the fact  that  two  Electric Supply Companies were paying wages which (1)  [1967]1 S.C.R.652. 182 were much higher than the wages being paid by the Board, and there  was  no  justification for refusing  the  demand  for additional   dearness  allowance  which  would   place   the employees  of the Board on par with the employees  of  those Electric  Supply  Companies.  One of those  Electric  Supply Companies is the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd.,  Ahmedabad,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

in whose case wages were fixed by an Award published in 1956 Industrial  Court  Reporter  at p. 746.  The  other  is  the Viramgam  Electric  Supply  Co. Ltd.,  Viramgam,  the  Award relating  to  which is published in  1968  Industrial  Court Reporter  at p. 1010.  The argument was that wages  paid  by the  Board should not be lower than those paid by these  two Electric  Supply  Companies which were engaged in  the  same line  of business of production and supply  of  electricity. The  Tribunal  brushed aside these example by  stating  that they  were  not comparable with the Board.  In  taking  this view, we do not think that the Tribunal committed an  error. In Williamsons (India) Private Ltd. v. Its Workmen(1),  this Court  clearly laid down what criteria had been  established for  considering what are comparable concerns  when  dealing with a question of wage fixation.  It was held :-               "This  Court has repeatedly observed that,  in               considering  the  question  about   comparable               concerns,  tribunals should bear in  mind  all               the relevant facts in relation to the problem.               The  extent  of the business  carried  by  the               concerns,  the capital invested by  them,  the               profits  made  by  them,  the  nature  of  the               business  carried on by them, their  standing,               the  strength  of  their  labour  force,   the               presence  or absence and the extent of  reser-               ves,  the dividends declared by them  and  the               prospects about the future of their  business-               these and all other relevant facts have to  be               borne in mind." In  the  present case, it is clear that,  if  these  various factors  are  taken  into  account,  neither  the  Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd., nor the Viramgam Electric Supply  Co., can  be held to be a concern comparable with the Board.   As we have indicated earlier, the activities carried on by  the Board  are  not only production of  electricity  and  direct distribution in some areas, but also include preparation  of schemes  for development of supply of electricity  in  areas not  served so far and for supply of electricity  to  licen- sees.   The  two concerns at Ahmedabad and  Viramgam  merely generate  and supply electricity to consumers in the  cities or  towns served by them.  The Board, according to  the  Act constituting  it,  has primarily to  supply  electricity  to licensees,  and not confine its supply to  direct  consumers like these two concerns.  The (1)  [1962] 1 L.L.J.302.  183 supply  to consumers is only undertaken where there  are  no licensees  to  undertake  the  distribution  of  electricity generated  by the Board, and this activity of direct  supply to  consumers is primarily carried on in rural  areas  where the  population is sparsely distributed as compared  to  the cities  or  towns served by the other two  concerns.   Then, there is the important factor that the Board is running at a huge  loss every year.  The workmen did not provide  figures to  show  what  was  the  profitability  of  the  other  two concerns, though the Awards in their cases seem to  indicate that  both  of  them  are running at  a  profit.   In  these circumstances,  we cannot hold that the  Tribunal  committed any  error  in ignoring the wages being paid  by  these  two concerns,  when  dealing  with the question  of  payment  of dearness  allowance  by the Board.  In  this  connection,  a request  was made by learned counsel that we may remand  the case to the Tribunal in order to enable the Sangh to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that these  two concerns  are  comparable,  or to  cite  examples  of  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

undertakings in the same industry in the Saurashtra  region, or,   it  there  be  no  such  undertakings  available,   of undertakings in other industries in the Saurashtra region so as to enable the Saingh to claim wages on parity with  those undertakings.    We   do  not  think  that  there   is   any justification  for remanding the case for such a purpose  at this  stage.  It was open to the Sangh to  produce  material before the Tribunal when the dispute was first  investigated by  it, and no reason is shown why the Sangh did not do  so. Further, as we have indicated earlier, the very circumstance that the Board does not have the financial capacity to  meet the  additional  burden of the demands made by  the  workmen justifies  the  order  made by the  Tribunal.   The  further request  that  the  remand would enable the  Sangh  to  show whether the losses brought to the notice of the Tribunal  by the  Board were, in fact, net losses has also no force,  be- cause,  when the losses were proved before the  Tribunal  by production  of an affidavit on behalf of the Board  and  the deponent appeared in the witness-box, no attempt was made on behalf  of the Sangh to cross-examine the deponent in  order to  establish  that  the  losses  had  not  been   correctly represented.  We do not think that, in these  circumstances, any remand of this case is called for.  It does appear  that the  Tribunal in its award committed the error of  comparing the Board with the Maharashtra Electricity Board and similar Electricity  Boards in other States and thus  acted  against the principle that wages should be compared on industry-cum- region  basis;  but  that  mistake  does  not  justify   any interference  with the award which is otherwise correct  and justified.   The Tribunal was quite right in  rejecting  the demands made by the Sangh, particularly in the light of  the further  fact  relied  upon by the  Tribunal  that  all  the employees of 184 the Board in the Gujarat Region as well as large majority of over  2500  employees  even in  the  Saurashtra  Region  had accepted the existing rates based on the settlement and only 466  employees  had come forward with  this  demand  without establishing  that the demand wag restricted to bringing  up their wages to the level of minimum wages. The  appeal is dismissed, but we make no order as to  costs. R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed. 185