http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: BIRLA COTTON SPINNING &WEAVING MILLS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: WORKMEN AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/1962

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) SUBBARAO, K. SHAH, J.C. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1158            1963 SCR  (2) 716  CITATOR INFO :  D          1971 SC2454  (10)

ACT: Industrial   Dispute-Standardisation  of   wage   structure- Designation of workmen.

HEADNOTE: The  dispute  between  the respondents  and  the  appellants regarding  ministries and line jobbers was referred  to  the Tribunal regarding the increase and standardisation of wages and  regarding the designation of workmen doing the work  of fancy  jobbers and their pay.  The appellant contended  that an  earlier award of 1951 had not been terminated  and  that the  reference  was  incompetent.   The  Tribunal   directed standardisation  on  the basis of the  Bombay  Scheme.   The Tribunal 717 acceded  to the claim regarding fancy jobbers.  Finally  the Tribunal  directed that "whereever the said  existing  wages are higher than those fixed under the Bombay Standardisation Scheme, they shall remain and shall not be lowered" and that regarding  operatives who were designated  differently  from Bombay list, they should be paid what those described by any other name but doing identical work were being paid in  Bom- bay and that the adjustment of anomalies that might arise in this  matter should be decided by A Committee consisting  of the representatives of the Management and the Union. Held, that the agreement following the earlier award %as not a  settlement  within  the  meaning  of  s.  19(2)  of   the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was Competent. Held,  further, that the Tribunal ought to  have  considered the  applicability of the Bombay Standardisation  Scheme  to the  condition in Delhi by examining evidence and  that  the Tribunal  ought not to have shut out evidence in respect  of the  working of the Bombay Standardisation Scheme  in  Delhi and  that  the  Tribunal  had  not  considered  the   matter carefully and made such modifications as might be necessary. The  Tribunal ought not to have delegated the  determination and  adjustment  of  the anomalies in  applying  the  Bombay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

standardisation  scheme  to a joint committee by  it  should have considered and determined those matters itself. Held,  further, that in the event of standardisation it  may be necessary if justice demanded it to give some measure  of protection to such individual workmen as were getting higher wages than what they would get under standardisation scheme. But  the matter will have to be considered by  the  Tribunal subject  to  three  conditions: viz., (1) there  can  be  no further rise in wages of those protected by the operation of the   standardisation  of  scheme,  (2)  if  there   is   an incremental  scales fixed by the standardisation scheme  and the  protected workmen are getting between the  minimum  and the  maximum but are not entitled thereto according  to  the length  of  their  service,  future  increments  should   be adjusted till the protected workmen find their proper  place in the scale according to the length of service, and (3) the category  of protected workmen should in due course  exhaust by the termination of service of such workmen by  retirement or otherwise. Held,  that the direction of the Tribunal could be  read  to mean  the  protection  of existing  higher  wages  generally rather than the higher wages of particular workmen and  such a   thing  was  not  consistent  with  the   principles   of standardisation 718

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1956. Appeal  by special leave from the Award dated  December  29, 1958  of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I. D. No.  36  of 1957 published in the Delhi Gazette dated 5th March, 1959. G.   B. Pai and I. N. Shroff, for the Appellant. M.   K.  Ramamurthi, B. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, and  D.  P. Singh, for the Respondent 1. 1962.  May 2. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO,  J.This appeal by special leave, arises out  of  an industrial  dispute  between the Birla Cotton  Spinning  and Weaving Mills Limited (hereinafter called the appellant) and its  workmen.  A large number of matters were  referred  for adjudication  to the industrial tribunal but in the  present appeal  we are concerned with two, namely, ii)  whether  the wages  require  to be increased and standardised,  and  what directions  are necessary in this respect, and (ii)  whether any of the workmen doing the work of fancy jobbers should be designated  and  paid  accordingly.   The  first  point  has however  been confined to miseries and line jobbers only  as the  other  operatives  were covered  by  another  award  in another  reference  (No.1.D. 52 of 1957)  between  the  same parties,  which was decided earlier by this tribunal.   That award  came  in appeal this Court and the decision  of  this Court is reported in The Management of Birla Cotton Spinning and  Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Its workmen (1).  This court  had set  aside the earlier award and sent the case back  to  the tribunal to proceed in the manner indicated in the judgment. We  are told that matter has ended in a  compromise  between the  parties.   The claim of the workmen  concerned  in  the present (1)  A.I.R. (1961) S.C. 1179.  719 reference  (namely,  mistries and line-  jobbers)  was  that their  wages were low and not standardised and in  spite  of representations made to the appellant, nothing had been done in the matter.  The workmen therefore claimed that the wages

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

should  be  increased and standardised and  incremental  pay scales  should  be introduced so far as  mistries  and  line jobbers, were concerned.  As to fancy jobbers the  workmen’g claim was that they had been wrongly designated recently  as assistant  fancy jobbers, though they were doing the job  of fancy jobbers.  It was therefore contended that they ’should be designated as fancy jobbers and their pay also  increased and standardised accordingly. The appellant resisted the claim on a number of grounds.  It was  contended  firstly that there was an earlier  award  in 1951  made  by  Shri Dulat, which was  still  in  force  and therefore  the  reference  was  incompetent.   Next  it  was contended that there was no comparison between the Swatantra Bharat  Mills and the Delhi Cloth Mills on the one hand  and the  appellant-mills  on the other and therefore  the  wages prevalent in those mills could not retaken as a standard for fixing  wages for the appellant’s workmen.  Thirdly, it  was urged  that incremental scales were provided nowhere in  the textile   industry  and  therefore  this  claim  should   be rejected.   Fourthly,  the workmen designated  as  assistant fancy  jobbers had been so designated rightly and could  not Claim  to be fancy jobbers.  And lastly, it was  urged  that there  was no case for applying the  Bombay  standardisation scheme  to the appellant’s workmen for conditions in  Bombay and Delhi were in many respect different. The tribunal rejected the contention that the Dulat award of 1951  bad  not  been terminated and  therefore  the  present reference  was incompetent.  The tribunal further held  that though  there were difference between the  Swatantra  Bharat Mills and 720 the  Delhi Cloth Mills on the one hand and the appellant  on the  other, both in the matter of the working of  the  mills and in the matter of their financial position, they were not of importance as there were bound to be differences  between unit and unit of the same industry and thus the wages paid in  those  two mills were comparable.  As to the  claim  for ineremntal  scale  of  wages,  the  tribunal  held  that  no incremental  scale had been provided in any  standardisation scheme relating to textile industry and rejected this claim. It further held that the workmen now designated as assistant fancyjobbers were really fancy jobbersandhad been previously designated  as such.  Recently, however, they started to  be called assistant fancy jobbers and therefore it was  ordered that  they’  should  be designated as  fancy  jobbers.   And lastly, the tribunal following its earlier award referred to above held that the Bombay standardisation scheme should  be adopted  for  mistries  and line jobbers as  well  as  fancy jobbers.  It also directed that "wherever the said  existing wages   are  higher  than  those  fixed  under  the   Bombay Standardisation  Scheme, they shall remain and shall not  be lowered".   It  also  directed that  where  operatives  were designated  by  any other name, either not included  in  the Bombay  list or materially different from the one  appearing in  the  list, they should be paid the same wages  as  those doing  identical  work according to the Bombay  list  and  a joint  committee  consisting of the representatives  of  the management and the union might be formed to investigate  the anomalies,  arising  out of the application  of  the  Bombay standardisation  scheme,  and in case  of  disagreement  the matter  might be referred to the industrial tribunal  either through  a regular reference made with mutual consent or  as an arbitrator mutually agreed upon. 721 The appellant challenges the award and its main  contentions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

are-               (i)   that  the reference was  incompetent  as               the  Dulat award of 1951 had not  been  termi-               nated;               (ii)  that  the tribunal was wrong in  holding               that  the  assistant fancy jobbers  should  be               designated as fancy jobbers;               (iii) that the tribunal was wrong in  applying               the  Bombay  standardisation’  scheme  to  the               appellant’s   workmen  without  allowing   the               appellant even a chance of producing  evidence               with  respect to that scheme and  showing  the               difference  between the conditions  in  Bombay               and  the  conditions  in  Delhi,  which  would               require  modification  of that scheme  in  its               application to the appellant’s workmen;               (iv)  that  the  tribunal  by  directing   the               appointment   of   a   joint   committee    to               investigate  the anomalies bad not solved  the               dispute  referred to it with the  result  that               there would be further disputes arising out of               this direction of the tribunal; and               (v)   that   the  tribunal’s  direction   that               ",wherever the said existing wages are  higher               than  those  fixed  under  the  Bombay   stan-               dardisation  scheme,  they shall  remain,  and               shall not be lowered" is against the principle               on  which  the  standardisation  schemes   are               based.               Re. (i). The  question whether the Dulat award of 1951 stood in’  the way of the present reference 722 being competent was considered by this Court in the  earlier case  (referred  to above) and was rejected.   It  was  then pointed out that the Dulat award had held that there was  no justification  for delaying standardisation and had  ordered the parties to work out a scheme taking the Bombay award No. 1  as the working model.  In pursuance of that direction,  a scheme  was  worked  out and the parties  agreed  to  it  on September 29, 1951.  It was urged for the appellant that the agreed  scheme  of September 1951 thus became in a  sense  a part  of  the Dulat award and as it was terminated  only  in November 1956, while the present reference was made on March 3,  1956,  that  award  stood in  the  way  of  the  present reference being competent.  This contention was negatived by this Court in, its earlier judgment on two grounds.  In  the first  place, it was pointed out that this  agreement  could not be a part of the Dalat award in any sense and  therefore the Dulat award could not stand in the way of the competence of  the reference even if it was not terminated  before  the reference.   In  the second place, it was pointed  that  the agreement of 1951 did not amount to a settlement within  the meaning of s. 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood in 1951, and therefore s. 19 (2) would not apply to ’that  agreement.   We  were of opinion  that  on  the  same reasoning  the present argument that the reference  when  it was  made was incompetent because of the Dulat  award  being still in force, must fail and the contention on this head is rejected. Re. (ii) We  are  of opinion that the tribunal was right  in  holding that  it  was only shortly before the reference  that  those workmen  who  used to be called fancy jobbers  began  to  be designated  as  assistant fancy jobbers.  The  tribunal  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

considered the entire evidence on this point and we are in  723 agreement  with the view expressed by it, namely,  that  the assistant fancy jobbers should be designa- Birl ted as fancy jobbers  as  before and the recent innovation  calling  them assistant  fancy  jobbers was only a device to  depress  the status  of this class of workmen.  The contention  therefore on this head must also fail. Re. (iii). It  appears  that the tribunal merely followed  its  earlier award in ID 52 of 1957 when it proceeded to apply the Bombay standardisation scheme to mistries and line jobbers as  well as  fancy jobbers.  That award, as we have pointed out,  was set  aside by this Court in the earlier judgment on  various grounds.   It is not necessary for us to repeat the  reasons which impelled this Court in the earlier appeal to set aside the  award in ID 52 of 1957.  Those reasons in  our  opinion apply with full force to the present award also in so far as it  introduces  the Bombay standardisation  scheme  for  the workmen  concerned in the present dispute.  In  addition  we may point out that the appellant wanted to produce  evidence with  respect  to the Bombay standardisation scheme  and  to summon two witnesses from Bombay and Kanpur with respect  to the  working of that scheme; but the tribunal by  its  order dated  January  6, 1958, held that it was not  necessary  to examine those witnesses in view of the conditions  obtaining in Delhi, the region with which it was concerned.  But  even though  the tribunal thus-refused to examine  evidence  with respect to the working of the Bombay standardisation  scheme it went on to the adopt that scheme in its entirety  without any modification when it came to make its award, in view  of its  earlier award.  We are of opinion that it was not  fair for  the tribunal to shut out evidence with respect  to  the working of the Bombay standardisation scheme which the  app- ellant wanted to produce and then apply that 724 scheme without any modification to the appellantmill. Another  reason  which impelled the tribunal  to  apply  the Bombay standardisation scheme in this case was stated by  it to  be  that  the scheme was applicable  to  this  class  of workmen  in the Delhi Cloth Mills and the  Swatantra  Bharat Mills.   This statement in our opinion is not borne  out  by the  evidence of the two witnesses produced by  the  workmen from  those  two  mills.  Manoharlal  (W.W.  19),  a  labour officer   of  the  Bharat  Mills,  was  examined   in   this connection.  He stated that for workers the Swatantra Bharat Mills had followed the Bombay standardisation scheme in  the matter  of payment of wages on voluntary basis but  not  for mistries and jobbers.  This statement was apparently treated by  the tribunal as meaning that the Bombay  standardisation scheme was applicable to mistries and jobbers though Manohar Lal stated exactly the opposite.  It is true that Manoharlal stated that for certain categories of misitries and  jobbers the  Swatantra  Bharat  Mills  paid  more  than  the  Bombay standardisation  scheme  gave to such categories;  but  that does not mean that the Bombay staddardisation scheme as such was applicable to all mistries and jobbers in the  Swatantra Bharat  Mills.   The second witness was B.  L.  Saxena,  the labour officer in the Delhi Cloth Mills.  He stated that the wages  of  line jobbers and mistries were  more  in  certain cases and in some cases at par with the wages in the  Bombay standardisation  scheme.  But he also stated that  the  line jobbers  andmistries in the Delhi Cloth Mills had  not  been brought under the Bombay standardisation scheme.  It appears from  the evidence of both these witnesses that there is  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

fixed grade for mistries and jobbers and each one gets  what may be called his own pay.  Therefore in some cases the  pay which a jobber or a misery gets may be higher or may be 725 equal to the wages in the standardisation scheme.  But  this does not mean that the Bombay standardisation scheme as such has  been applied to mistries and jobbers in the  other  two mills in Delhi.  The tribunal was therefore wrong even on  a comparison of the other two mills in Delhi to hold that  the Bombay  standardisation  scheme  should be  applied  to  the appellant-mills also. The  tribunal’s  award with respect to fancy  jobbers  would also  show how the manner in which the tribunal  dealt  with the application of the Bombay standardisation scheme to  the appellants has resulted in unfairness.  After having rightly held  that the assistant fancy bobbers should be  designated as  fancy  jobbers, the tribunal went on to award  that  the fancy jobbers so designated should be paid according to  the Bombay  standardisation scheme without apparently  examining that scheme.  A copy of that scheme has been produced before us  and  it  shows that the Bombay  scheme  envisages  three categories of workers in what is called fancy work,  namely, head fancy jobber, fancy jobber and assistant fancy jobbers. Therefore  before the tribunal decided to apply  the  Bombay standardisation scheme it was necessary to compare the  work done  by  the fancy jobbers in the appellantmills  with  the work  done  by either the fancy jobber  or  assistant  fancy jobber in the Bombay standardisation scheme and then  decide whether  they  would come under ’the  designation  of  fancy jobbers   or  assistant  fancy  jobbers  under  the   Bombay standardisation scheme or some under one and some under  the other.  We are therefore of opinion that the manner in which the  case has been dealt with by the tribunal show,  as  was pointed out in the earlier case also, that it was dealt with in a ever functory way, though in this case the tribunal had the excuse to follow its own award in the earlier case.   We are 726 however of opinion that if the Bombay standardisation scheme is  to be applied to the appellantmills with respect to  the workmen  concerned  in  the present  appeal,  the’  tribunal should  go  into  the matter carefully again  on  the  lines indicated  by  this Court in its earlier judgment  and  then decide whether the Bombay standardisation scheme as a  whole should be applied to the appellant-mills with respect to the workmen  concerned in the present dispute or  whether  there should  be  any  modification  of that  scheme  in  view  of differences  between  the  conditions  in  Bombay  and   the conditions  in  Delhi.   This applies  to  all  the  workmen concerned in this appeal,i.   e. the line jobbers,  mistries and fancy jobbers. We    are therefore of opinion that  this appeal must be allowed  and  the  case  sent  back  to   the tribunal  for reconsideration on the lines  indicated  above and in accordance with the earlier judgment of this Court. Re. (iv). As  to the direction by the tribunal that a joint  committee should be appointed to go into what is called,anomalies,  it is  enough  to refer to what was said by this Court  in  the earlier  judgment where a similar direction had  been  made. It  was pointed out there that by making the  direction  the tribunal  had left a part of the dispute to be  resolved  by the  parties themselves, so that the tribunal had  not  done what  it  was  expected  to do itself  under  the  terms  of reference.   We set aside this direction and order that  the tribunal  should  go  into  this’  matter  itself  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

assistance  of  assessors, if it considers  that  necessary, before  it applies the Bombay standardisation scheme  either in  its  entirety  or  with  modification  to  the   workmen concerned in the appellant-mills. Re. (v). This  brings  US to the last point.  The  direction  in  the present award by the tribunal is that 727 "  wherever  the said existing wages are higher  than  those fixed  under the Bombay standardisation scheme,  they  shall remain,  and shall not be lowered".  Objection is  taken  to this  direction  by  the appellant.   There  was  a  similar direction in- the earlier award also and in that  connection this Court observed as follows at p. 1182 :-               "It  cannot  be disputed that  when  a  stand-               ardisation  scheme comes into force it  is  an               integrated  whole and may sometime  result  in               some  categories of workmen getting less  than               what  they  were getting  before.   The  whole               purpose  of  a standardisation  scheme  is  to               standardise  wages and where they are  low  to               raise   them   to  the   standardised   level.               Similarly  where the wages are high they  have               to  be  reduced in order to fit  them  in  the               standardised  scheme.  The tribunal  therefore               was clearly wrong in acting against the  basic               principle  of  a standardised scheme  when  it               ordered  that  the wages should  be  increased               according  to  the standardised  scheme  where               they  were  low but should  not  be  decreased               where  they  were  high.   This  principle  of               standardisation is clear and even the  learned               counsel for the workmen had to admit it." It  is  urged  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  that  these observations  are  liable to be misunderstood and  may  give rise to the impression that it is not open to a tribunal  to protect  the wages of individual workmen who may be  getting more than the wages fixed under the standardisation  scheme, at  the  time  when  such a scheme  comes  into  force,  The respondents  do not dispute that the basic principal  behind the  standardisation scheme is what has been stated by  this Court; but they contend that though after a  standardisation scheme has been brought into force it may not be open 728 even  to  the  management to give more  wages  than    those provided in the standardisation scheme, that principal  does not  require necessarily that the wages of  individuals  who might be drawing more at the date the standardisation scheme comes  into force should also be reduced and should  not  be protected  for those individuals only.  It is urged that  it is open to the tribunal to protect the wages of such workmen who  might  be  drawing more than the  wages  fixed  in  the standardisation  scheme,  though it may not be open  to  the management after the standardisation scheme comes into force to  pay more wages than fixed in the standardisation  scheme to  any one employed thereafter.  On the other hand,  it  is contended  for  the appellant that  when  a  standardisation scheme  comes into force even the wages of  individuals  who are   getting   more   than  what   is   provided   in   the standardisation  scheme  must be reduced  and  the  tribunal cannot protect the wages even of such individuals.  Reliance in  this  connection  has  been  placed  on  behalf  of  the appellant  on Daru v. Ahmedabad Spinning  and  Manufacturing Company limited. (1) In  that  case the principles  governing  a  standardisation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

scheme were considered by the Bombay High Court  considering the report of the Textile Labour Inquiry Committee and  also the  book of Dr. D. R. Gadgil on "’Regulation of  wages  and other  Problems  of  Industrial Labour in  India".   It  was pointed  out that when in an industry divergent  wages  were being paid and there was considerable difference between the top  wage  and  the lowest wage, it was  very  difficult  to standardise these wages and therefore the first thing to  be done was to fix a minimum wage which is generally  somewhere between the top and bottom; but where wages in a  particular occupation  are  not  very divergent and are  more  or  less uniform, that is (1)  (1955) 1 L. L. G. 355, 729 the  time  and  the stage when a labour  tribunal  may  well standardise  those  wages  because  in  standardising   them although it may result in some workers being paid less  than what  they  are being paid, the loss to them  would  not  be considerable and if it is in the interest of labour that all workers should be paid the same wages who are doing the same work then the standardisation would result in benefit to the cause of labour. There  can  be  no  dispute as  to  the  validity  of  these principles and their soundness will be clear from the  facts of  that  case.  In that case a standardisation  scheme  had been brought into force in 1948.  In 1951, one of the  mills governed  by  the standardisation scheme  introduced  a  new section  the  wages in which were covered  by  the  standar- disation  scheme.   However, the wages in  the  new  section fixed  by the said mill were higher than those fixed by  the standardisation  scheme.   Later  in 1953,  the  mills  gave notice to the workmen reducing the wages fixed in 1951 so as to  conform  to the wages laid down in  the  standardisation scheme.   This  was objected to by the workmen  whose  wages were  reduced and that is how the dispute arose.   The  High Court  held in those circumstances that in view of the  fact that  the standardisation scheme was in force from 1948,  it was not open to the employer to give higher wages than those fixed  in the standardisation scheme in 1951 because it  was of the essence of the standardisation scheme that the  wages for  the  same work should be equal and  that  where  higher wages had been paid than those fixed in the  standardisation scheme  they  should be reduced to that  level.   That  case however  was not concerned with protection of the  wages  of individuals who might be getting more than what is  provided in the standardisation scheme at the time when it is 730 brought  into  force.   It  is  in  this  context  that  the observations  made by the High Court have to  be  understood and  in  that  context  the  observations  laying  down  the principles  behind a standardisation scheme are, if  we  may say so with respect, sound. It  is however urged on behalf of the respondents  that  the protection  given  by the tribunal in this case is  no  more than  protection for individual workmen who may  be  getting more  wages than those fixed in the  standardisation  scheme when  it comes into force and this direction is correct  and that  there  is nothing in law which prevents  the  tribunal from   giving  such  a  direction  for  the  protection   of individuals who might be getting more wages at the time  the standardisation  scheme is brought into force.  It seems  to us  that  it  would not be against the  basic  principle  of standardisation to which this Court referred in the  earlier case to protect the wages of individual workmen who might be getting  more  than the wages fixed in  the  standardisation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

scheme at the time when such a scheme is brought into force. It  will  be  for the tribunal to  decide  whether  it  will protect  these  individual workmen or not.  If it  gives  no direction  for protection to individual workmen,  they  will not be protected and their wages will have to be lowered  in case they are higher than those fixed in the standardisation scheme.  But if the tribunal considers that it will be  more in   consonance  with  justice  to  protect  the  wages   of individual  workmen it may give a direction to that  effect, even  though they may be ’more than the wages fixed  in  the standardisation  scheme.   In such a case  three  conditions will always have to be borne in mind.  In the. first  place, there  can  be  no further raising of  the  wages  of  these protected    workmen   by   the   management    after    the standardisation  scheme  comes  into  force,  for  any  such further   rise   will   be   against   the   principle    of standardisation.  In the second  731 place, if the standardisation scheme fixes incremental scale of  wages  and if the protected workman is  getting  a  wage which  is between the minimum and the maximum and he is  not entitled  in  accordance with the length of his  service  to that wage but something less in the grade, the extra  amount that  he may be getting will have to be absorbed  in  future increments  till  he is properly fitted in  the  incremental scale according to the length of service.  Thirdly, when any workman’s   service  come,%  to  an  end  for   any   reason whatsoever,  no other employee whether new or old  would  be entitled  to claim the pay which the outgoing  employee  Was getting  on the ground that a vacancy with that  higher  pay has  arisen.   Subject to these three conditions it  may  be open  to  a  tribunal to protect  the  wages  of  individual workmen  even  though he may be getting  higher  wages  than those fixed in a standardisation scheme at the time when the scheme is introduced. Now  let us see what the tribunal has done in  this  matter. It directs that "wherever the said existing wages are higher than  those fixed under the Bombay  standardisation  scheme, they  shall remain, and shall not be lowered." This  in  our opinion   is  not  protection  of  individual  workmen   but protection of wages, which may be higher than those fixed in the  standardisation scheme.  This in our opinion cannot  be done   as   it  is  against  the  basic  principles   of   a standardisation scheme as observed in the earlier case.  The result  of  this direction by the tribunal would be  that  a particular  post carrying with it higher wages  will  remain protected  so  that when the individual who may  be  getting that  pay at the time the standardisation scheme comes  into force is no more employed, the other workmen may be able  to claim  wages  on  the  ground  that  the  wages  have   been protected.   The  proper way of giving  protection,  if  the tribunal thinks that justice demands that individuals who 732 are   _getting  higher  wages  then  those  fixed  under   a standardisation  scheme  should be protected, is  to  direct that the wages of such individuals should be fixed according to  the standardisation scheme, and the difference, if  any, between  their  wages and the standardised wages  should  be paid to them as personal pay so long as they are in service. As soon as such an individual goes out of ,service,  another coming in his place will not be entitled to the personal pay the  outgoing workman was getting, and will be fixed in  the standardisation  scheme.   The  direction  however  of   the tribunal  in this case is capable of being read not for  the protection  of individuals but for the protection of  wages,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

and this in our opinion cannot be done in view of the basic principles governing a standardisation scheme.     We are therefore  of opinion that the direction    for the protection of existing wages  given in the form in which it has been given by  the’ tribunal must be set aside.  At the same time we leave it to the  tribunal  to decide if it considers it  just  when  the matter   goes  back  to  it  for   reconsideration   whether individual  workmen  should  be protected, even  in  case  a standardisation scheme is introduced, in the manner we  have indicated above. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside partly the order of  the tribunal with respect to certain matters with  which we have dealt in the course of this judgment and direct that the  tribunal should rehear the reference and reconsider  in the  light  of this judgment and the earlier  judgment  what should  be its award with respect to miseries,  line-jobbers and  fancy jobbers in connection with the following term  of reference :               "Whether the wages require to be increased and               standardised,   and   what   directions    are               necessary in this respect." 733 Parties will be at liberty to lead such further evidence  on all matters sent back for reconsideration as they think fit. In  the  circumstances we order parties to  bear  their  own costs. Appeal allowed.