http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: THE INDIAN OXYGEN LIMITED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: WORKMEN AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/1962

BENCH:

ACT: Industrial Dispute-Wage scales-Classification.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  contended that though the wage  scales  were fixed in 1949, as in 1957, the question of revision of  wage scales  had  been  brought  before  another  Tribunal  which refused  revision  except in the case of Mazdoors 1  and  2, revision  ought  not  to  have been  allowed  and  that  the Tribunal had compared the wage scales of the appellant  with those-with  which they were not comparable and further  that the Tribunal  737 had itself made some obvious mistakes which were later  cor- rected,  and  that therefore the wage scales  fixed  by  the Tribunal  required  review.   As to  classification  it  was contended  that the Tribunal should have  itself  classified the  workmen and not left this question to the appellant  as it would lead to further disputes. Held,  that  on  the facts of the case there  was  need  for revision   of  wage  scales  and  that   substantially   the comparison made was with engineering concerns, on which  the appellant  itself bad relied.  Though in some  cases  higher scales had been given to the workmen, the wage scales  fixed by the Tribunal were justified. Held, further, that though there were some slips in  matters of  detail  in  the award of the  tribunal  which  had  been rectified by it except for correcting one obvious slip which it had failed to correct the Award of the Tribunal could not be said to be vitiated. Held,  also,  that  classification  is  of  two  kinds   (1) classification  of  jobs and (2) fitting of  existing  staff into the various classified jobs.  The first  classification is  a  matter  for  the Tribunal  whereas  the  second  kind generally speaking may appropriately be left to the employer to be done in consultation with the Union, and it is only  a disputed  case which may be referred, it necessary,  to  the Tribunal. Novex  Dry Cleaners v. Its Workmen, [1962] 1 L.L.J. 271  and French Motor Car Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, [1963] Supp. 2  S.C.R. 16, referred to. As  the  Tribunal  had  directed only  the  second  type  of classification  to be done by the appellant in  consultation with the Union, the direction Was not erroneous.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 528 of 1962.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March 10, 1962, of  the  Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra in  Reference  No. (IT) 114 of 1961. M.C.  Setalvad,  Attorney-General of  India,  Purushottam Tricumdas, J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. 738 C  L. Dudhia, Yatik Rehman and K. L. Hathi, for  respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 1962.   December 6. The judgment of the Court was  delivered by WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from theaward of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra ina       dispute between   the  appellant  company  and  its  workmen.    The reference was on six matters, namely, (i) wage scales,  (ii) adjustments,  (iii)  increments,: (iv)  classification,  (v) designation of certain workmen, ’and (vi) merger of dearness allowance.   The tribunal rejected the demands  relating  to increments  and merger of dearness allowance.  With  respect to the other four matters referred to it, the tribunal fixed revised scales of wages and provided for the manner in which adjustments  would  be  made.   As  to  classification,  the tribunal  ordered that the employees would be classified  by the  appellant  after  consulting  both  the  unions  in  an advisory  capacity.   It  also changed  the  designation  of plant-attendants to plant-operators. The  present  appeal by the  appellant-company  is  directed against  two matters dealt with in  the award,  namely,  (i) wage scales and (ii) classfication.  The appellant  contends that  the tribunal made a mistake’ when it held  that  wage- scales required reconsideration, particularly as this matter had  been  considered by another tribunal in 1957  and  that tribunal had decided to keep the previously existing  scales which were in force since 1949 except in the case of Mazdoor I and’ Mazdoor II. It is further contended that the tribunal was not Justified in comparing wage-scales in concerns which were  clearly  not comparable  with  the  appellant-company. Further  it is’ pointed out that the tribunal  made  obvious mistakes  in the award some of which it later corrected  and this clearly shows that the matter was not given 739 that consideration by the tribunal which it deserved.  As to classification, it has been urged that the. tribunal  should not  have  left  the  question  of  classification  to   the appellant-company  as  that would lead to  endless  disputes between the appellant and its workmen. We  are of opinion that there is no force in- any  of  these contentions.  There is no doubt that wage scales which  were revised  by  the tribunal were fixed as far back  as-  1949. Obviously,  therefore,  there would be a  clear  case  :for, revision  of wage-scales in 1962, for it is not, and  cannot be,  disputed  that there has been  considerable  change  in circumstances  between  1949 and 1962.  But it is  urged  on behalf  of  the appellant-company that though  wage  scales, which have been revised, under the present award, were fixed in  1949, they came up for revision before another  tribunal in 1957. The then tribunal was of opinion that the scales of pay  of  most  of  the  categories  of  workmen  were  quite satisfactory and proceeded only to revise the scales of  pay of  Mazdoor I and Mazdoor II.  It is therefore.  urged  that the  fact that ,the existing scales which have been  revised under  the  award were fixed in 1949  loses  all  importance because  they came up for reconsideration in 1957,  and  the then  tribunal  thought that no case had been  made  out,for their  revision.   Therefore, the argument  is  that  unless

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

there  is a change in circumstances after 1957, there  would be  no reason to revise the wage-scales as has been done  by the  tribunal.  But as the tribunal has pointed  out,  there has been an increase in the cost of living even since  1957. It has further pointed that dearness allowance at the  best, may  neutralise the increase in the cost of living fully  in the,  case  of workmen drawing a basic wage of  Rs.30/-;  it does  not neutralise the increase in the cost. of living  in the case of those drawing above the minimum wage, and as the wage  increases  the  neutralisation  affected  by  dearness allowance  becomes,less and less.  Therefore, when  cost  of living has                             740 gone  up since 1957, a case has been made out  for  revising wage scales in 1962.  The tribunal; has further pointed  out that there have been since 1949 a large number of awards and agreements in prosperous concerns like the appellant-company wherein  higher  wages have been fixed. It may be  that  the wage-scales  fixed in the appellant-company in 1949 were  on the  high  side as compared to other concerns  of  the  same standing  in  that region.  But if, as pointed  out  by  the tribunal,  the  other concerns are now giving  higher  wages than they were giving in 1949 due either to agreements or to awards,  wage-scales fixed in the  appellant-company  should also be revised in order to maintain’ it in the same leading position as it apparently held in 1949.  In this  connection our  attention  was  drawn to a number of  charts  filed  on behalf  of the appellant comparing the total wage packet  of the appellant-company as it stands after revision with such’ other  concerns  as  the  appellant  considered  comparable. These  charts in our opinion as prepared do not  depict  the correct  position because the dearness allowance payable  by the  appellant-company  is  on a different  basis  from  the dearness allowance payable in the concerns, which appear  in these   charts.   The  appellant-company   apparently   pays dearness allowance at the old textile scale but for all days in the month while the other companies which have been taken for  comparison  pay  the revised  textile  scale  which  is apparently higher than the old textile scale for all days in the month which the appellant is paying.  So, the comparison made in these charts is not very helpful in showing that the revised  wage  scales  have made such changes  in  the  wage structure  in the appellant company as to put it  completely out of line with comparable concerns.  It appears to us that with  the  changes  made in the wage  scales  all  that  has happened  is  that the appellant-company still  maintains  a lead  in  the  matter of total wage packet  as  against  the comparable concerns in the same way 741 as  it did: in, 1949.  In the circumstances, we  agree  with the tribunal that a case had been made out for revising  the wage  scales even though in 1957 the then tribunal  did  not think  it  necessary to make any change in  the  wage-scales prevailing, in’ this company except in the case of Mazdoor I and Mazdoor II. As,  to  the  contention  that  the  tribunal  compared  the appellant-company  with  concerns  which  were  really   not comparable,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  at  present   the appellant  is  the  only company of  its  kind  carrying  on business in Bombay.  There was thus no comparable concern in its  own  line of business in that region.   Therefore,  the tribunal  would  be justified in looking for  comparison  at concerns  nearly  similar to the appellant.   The  appellant also  conceded,  and  we think  rightly,  that  the  nearest industry  for  purposes of comparison  with  the  appellant-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

company  was the engineering industry.  The workmen  on  the other  hand  wanted  that the  appellant-company  should  be compared  with  the oil refineries-and  Greaves  Cotton  and Company Limited, Imperial Tobacco Limited, Associated Cement Companies  Limited  and some other concerns.   The  tribunal held that the oil refineries stood in a class by themselves. It  also held that Greaves Cotton and Company Limited was  a managing  agency concern and was therefore  not  comparable. It  also refused to compare the appellant-company  with  the Associated  Cement  Companies on the ground that it  had  no factory  in Bombay but only its head office.   The  tribunal also was not prepared to compare the appeliant company  with the  Imperial  Tobacco Company which was  in  an  altogether different  line of business.  The tribunal was  prepared  to compare  the appellant with the engineering firms which  the appellant  itself  relied on except one  concern  which  was considered by the tribunal to be too small.  It seems to  us therefore  that for the purpose of comparison  the  tribunal rightly took into account practically 742 the  companies  suggested by the appellant.    The  tribunal also mentioned some other companies which were indicated  on behalf of the workmen, for example, the Indian Cable Company Limited, and the Automobile Products.  These also cannot  be said,, to be non-comparable though the are not quite as near the appellant-company as they engineering concerns which the appellant-,company  relied  on.  In the  main,  however,  it appears that the tribunal relied on the engineering concerns on  which the appellant-company relied, though,  as  already indicated,  it  has given a slightly higher  scale  in  some cases to the workmen of the apppellant company apparently in view  of  the fact that the appellant company was  always  a leading  employer  in  the matter of  wage-scales.   We  are therefore  of  opinion that the tribunal cannot be  said  to have  made any mistake in the matter of taking into  account comparable concerns. Then  our  attention  was drawn to a  few  mistakes  in  the tribunals  award, and it is urged that. these mistakes  show that  the tribunal did not give such consideration  to.  the matter  as was expected of it.  It may be pointed  out  that three  of  these  mistakes were corrected  by  the  tribunal later.   So far as two of these corrections  are  concerned, namely,  (i) carpenters, and (ii) Assistant fore-man,  there appears to have been a slip inasmuch as the tribunal reduced the  maximum for these workmen which was already  prevalent, which of course it could not do.  The third mistake that the tribunal  corrected was with respect to  cylinder  weighers. There  undoubtedly the tribunal made mistake inasmuch as  it fixed  wages  for cylinder weighers which ’were  even  lower than Mazdoor I, though cylinder weighers always used to  get more than Mazdoor I. That mistake was also corrected by  the tribunal.  One more mistake has been pointed out to us  with respect  to  masons.   In  the case  of  masons,  the  grade demanded was  743 60-5-110-7-1/2-140  while the existing scale  was  60-4-100. The  tribunal  revised  the scale  to  64-4-100-5-110.   The complaint  is  that the minimum awarded by the  tribunal  is more than the minimum demanded by the workmen.  It seems  to us  that this is due to a slip, and the learned counsel  for the  respondents  conceded that the starting pay  should  be Rs.60/-.  We’  therefore correct this Mistake  and  fix  the grade  of masons at 60-4-100-5-110.  It is  clear  therefore that  there Were three slips by, the tribunal and there  was only  one mistake with respect to cylinder  weighers.   That

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

however,does not mean that the tribunal did not bestow  that attention  to the matter before it which it was expected  to do.   The  tribunal’s  award appears to be on  the  whole  a careful  one and it cannot be thrown over-board  because  of these,slips.  We therefore see no force in the contention of the appellant with respect to wage scales and hold that  the revised, grades introduced by the tribunal are fair. Turning  now to classification, the contention is  that  the tribunal  should  have made the  classification  itself  and should   not   have  asked  the  appellant   to   make   the classification  after consulting the unions in  an  advisory capacity.   Reliance  in  this connect on  is  placed  on  a decision of this Court in Novex Dry Cleaners v. Its  Workmen (1).    In   that  case  alto  there  was  a   question   of classification and this Court pointed out that it was not  a satisfactory  way  of dealing with the matter to  leave  the question of classification to the management in consultation with the workmen.  Classification, however, is of two kinds, namely,  (i)  Classification of jobs, and  (ii)  fitting  of existing  staff into the various classified jobs.   Now  the first  matter, (namely, classification of jobs) if it is  in dispute  between there management and the workmen should  be dealt with by tribunals themselves and the case relied on by the  appellant  is  more  of this  nature,  though  it  also involved the question of fitting each (1)[1962] 1 L L. J. 271. 744 workmen  in the various classified jobs.  In that  case  six categories  were fixed, but apparently the functions of  the categories  concerned  were  not defined  by  the  tribunal. Therefore,  it  was observed that the tribunal  should  have described  the functions’ of different categories and  given indication in the award as to how different employees should be placed in what category.  That case did not lay down that the, tribunal must fix each man into a particular classified job and that if it leaves this second kind of classification to  be  done  by the management  in  consultation  with  the workmen,  the  award  must be set aside.  We  may,  in  this connection  refer  to French Motor Car Co. Ltd.  v.  Workmen (1), where the tribunal had left the fixation of  individual workman into particular classified jobs to the management in consultation  with the workmen and that was upheld  by  this Court.  Generally speaking, the fixing of individual workmen in  particular  classified,  jobs can best be  done  by  the management in consultation with the union and it is only the disputed  cases which may be referred, if necessary, to  the tribunal.   In the present case also, the tribunal has  left it  to  the  appellant to fix individual  workmen  into  the various classified jobs after consultation with the  unions. It  is true that the tribunal has remarked that some of  the Mazdoor  I and Mazdoor II appear to it to be doing  work  of higher  category but that is merely a general remark and  it will  be  for  the  appellant to  classify  the  workmen  in consultation  with  the unions i.e. to fix each  workman  in particular  classified  jobs  which already  exist  in  this company  and  about  which there. is  no  dispute.   In  the circumstances,  the tribunals direction in the present  case with reference to the second type of classification does not suffer from any infirmity, We therefore dismiss the appeal except with the modification with  respect  to masons.  In the circumstances we  pass  no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed except for Slight modification. (1)  [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16. 745

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