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

PETITIONER: WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: WOOLCOMBERS WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/08/1973

BENCH: DWIVEDI, S.N. BENCH: DWIVEDI, S.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1973 AIR 2758            1974 SCR  (1) 504  1974 SCC  (3) 318  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1986 SC 125  (14)  RF         1990 SC1984  (7,30)

ACT: Industrial  Dispute Act-What is bare minimum wage  and  fair wage-Difference-Industry-cum-region-formula for fixing basic wages and dearness allowance what principle to be followed.

HEADNOTE: The  West Bengal Government referred an industrial  dispute’ between the appellants and their, workmen to the  Industrial tribunal for adjudication.  As many as 10 points of  dispute were  referred.   The  Tribunal gave its Award  on  all  the points  referred except a part of point No. 1 and point  No. 7, which were decided against the workmen.  The workmen were categorised  into 4 classes highly skilled,  skilled,  semi- skilled  and  unskilled workmen.  One part of  point  No’  1 relating  to  the fixation of the basic  wage  and  dearness allowance  of the workmen was decided in their favour.   The basic wage etc. of the workmen and other employees was fixed in an arbitrary manner by the Tribunal. Before  the  Award, all the workmen  were  getting  Dearness Allowances at a flat rate of Rs. 94.10. The Award had varied the Dearness Allowance also. The  Tribunal only gave its conclusions but it did Dot  give the  supporting reasons.  In appeal before this  Court.  the Appellant,  complained that the Tribunal in coming into  its conclusions,  did  not  give any  reason,  The  respondents, however,  sought to explain away the absence or  reasons  in the  Award  by saying that the Tribunal had fixed  the  bare minimum  wage.   So, no reasons were required to  be  given. Remanding the case to the Tribunal to record a fresh finding on the quantum and the basic wages and Dearness Allowance by applying the region part of the Industry-cum-Region  Formula etc., HELD : (1) The judicial and quasi-judicial authorities  when exercising initial jurisdiction should give their reasons in support  of  their  conclusions  because  of  the  following reasons : (a)It  is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness  or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. (b)It  is a well known principle that justice  should  not

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

only be done but should also appear to have been done.  In a sense, the conclusions may be just, but they may not  appear to be just to those who read them; and (c)That  from an appeal to this Court under Art.  136,  if the lower courts do not give reasons for their  conclusions, it  will be of little assistance to this Court to come to  a correct  decision.  The Court will have to wade through  the entire  record and find for itself whether the  decision  in appeal is right or wrong.  In many cases, this investment of time  and  industry will be saved if reasons  are  given  in support of the conclusions. [507C] (ii)The Tribunal has not fixed the bare minimum wage of the workmen  as emphasised by the respondent.  The bare  minimum wage.  as  pointed out in Kainani Metals & Alloys  v.  Their Workmen,  [1967] 2 L.L.J. 55 must be paid by an employer  in spite of want of financial capacity.  The bare minimum  wage is "the lowest little below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity." In the written statement, the workers did not ask for the bare minimum wage.  They were claiming a basic fair wage and not bare minimum wage. [508G] (iii)Further,  the referring order of the  West  Bengal Government did not ask the Tribunal to fix the bare  minimum wage   and  the  Tribunal  had  admittedly  considered   the financial  capacity of the Appellants.while fixing the  bare minimum  wage.  Therefore, what the Tribunal was  doing  was fixing  not  the bare minimum wage but a  basic  fair  wage. [510B-C] 505 (iv)For   fixing  basic  wages  and   Dearness   Allowance, industrial adjudication.sometimes leans on the industry part of  the industry-cum-region formula and on other  times,  on the  region part of the formula.  The industry part  of  the formula becomes relevant when the business carried on by the employers before the industrial adjudication is also carried on  by several other concerns in the region in..  which  the employer  is working.  In the present, case, the  appellants being  the only concern in the region, the industry part  of the formula is not applicable. [510G] Greates  Cotton & Co. and Ors. v. Their Workmen,  [1946]  5. S.C.R. 362, referred to. Therefore,  the present case is governed by the region  part of  the industry cum-region formula.  This formula  requires that  a comparable concern should nearly be similar  to  the line  of business carried on by the employer  before  indus- trial  adjudication.   The Tribunal has  made  endeavour  to select  for comparison, concerns merely similar to the  line of  business  carried  on  by the  appellant.   It  had  not compared  the appellant with any other concern.   There  is, however, oral evidence for or against the appellants, but in the  absence  of any documentary evidence, or  records,  the Tribunal Award on basic wages and Dearness Allowance  cannot be upheld.[1511B, 513D] French Motor, Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R.  16. and  Workmen of Balmer Lorrie & Co. v. Balmer Lorrie &  Co., [1964] 5 S.C.R. 344, referred to. The Tribunal should select comparable concerns in the region for the purpose of determining the basic wages and  Dearness Allowance of the respondents.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2529  of 1969. Appeal  by  special  leave from the. award  dated  the  26th

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

September,  1969  of  the Sixth  Industrial  Tribunal,  West Bengal   in   Case   No.  VIIII198/68   published   in   the Calcutta/Gazette dated the November 6, 1969. Sachin  Chaudhury  O. P. Malhotra, D. N. Gupta  and  G.,  L. Mukhoty, for the appellant. D.   N.  Mukherjee, and N. R. Chaudhury, for respondent  No. 1. G.   L. Sanghi, Rathin Das and S. K. Ganguli, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI,  J.-M/S.  Woolcombers of India Limited  have  their factory  at  Jagatdal, 21 miles from Calcutta.   They  shall hereafter  be  addressed  as  Woolcombers.   They  are   the appellants in this case.  The respondents are their  workmen employed  in the factory at Jagatdal.  They are  represented by  two  Unions : Woolcombers Workers’ Union and  the  Issac Holdens  Mazdoor  Union.  On June 4, 1969, the  West  Bengal Government  referred  an  industrial  dispute  between   the Woolcombers   and  their  workmen  to  the  6th   Industrial Tribunal,  Calcutta for adjudication.  As many as 10  points of  dispute  were, referred.  Parties filed,  their  written statements and produced their oral and documentary evidence. After examining the evidence; the Tribunal gave its award on September  26, 1969.  All the referred points except a  part of  point  No. 1 and point No. 7 were  decided  against  the workmen.  Point No. related to the categorisation of workmen in  the factory.  They were catagorised into four classes  : (1) highly skilled workmen, (2) skilled 506 workmen,   (3)  semi-skilled  workmen,  and  (4)   unskilled workmen.  ,’The  finding on point No. 7 is not  impugned  in this appeal.  A part of point No. 1 relating to the fixation of  grades  and  scales  of pay  was  ,decided  agains  the, workmen.   ’there  is no appeal against this,  part  of  the award  by  the workmen.  The remaining part of point  No.  1 relating to    the  fixation of the basic wage and  dearness allowance was decided in favour  of the workmen.  The  basic wage of the workmen was fixed in   the, Following manner:      (1) highly skilled workmenRs. 32/- per week      (2) skilled workmen Rs. 23/- per week      (3) semiskilled workmen  Rs. 25/- per week      (4) unskilled workmen    Rs. 22 50 p per week. They were also given an increment of Rs. 10/- over the basic wage.   The basic vage of other employees was fixed  in  the following manner:      (1) Clerk Grade I   Rs.  150-5-170-8-250      (2)  Clerk Grade 11 Rs.  130-3-200      (3)  S. B. Clerk    Rs.  200-10-300      (4)  S. A. Clerk    Rs.  270-10-370      (5) Driver     Rs.  120-5-140      (6) Darwan     Rs.  90/-      (7) Sweeper    Rs.  86/7      (8)  Junior Labaratory AssistantRs.     130-10-170-12- 206-15-251-                18-305      (9)  Senior Laboratory AssistantRs.     180-15-240-20- 300-25-400      (10) Overlooker     Rs.  180-15-290-20-410 Before  the  award, all the, workers were  getting  dearness allowance  at the flate rate of Rs. 94.10 p. The, award  has varied the dearness ;allowance in the following manner : (1)  Employees  getting Rs. 100 or below per month  dearness allowance, at Rs. 1501- per month. (2)  Employees  getting between Rs. 1 00 and 200 per  month- dearness allowance at Rs. 60/- per month for the second  Rs.

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

100/-. (3)  Employees  getting  between Rs..200 and 300  per  month dearness allowance at Rs. 20/- for the additional Rs. 100/-. This rate of dearness allowance will remain in force so long as  the point for the cost of living fluctuates between  650 and  750.  If the point goes beyond 750, per 5 points  there will  be an increase of Re. 1/Similarly, if the  point  goes below  650,  per 5 points there will be a  decrease  of  Re. 1/-. The  Tribunal has not stated the reasons in support  of  its conclusions.  This criticism of Shri Chaudhary, counsel  for the  Woolcombers,  appears to us to be right.   As  ;regards basic wages, the Tribunal says only this : "I am inclined to lay down the basic wages of the workmen...... those who  are highly  skilled  workmen .... will get Rs.  32/per  week  as their  basic  wages.  Those who are skilled workmen. .  .  . will get Rs. 28/- per week as their basic wages.  Those  who are semi- 507 skilled  workmen  .... will get Rs. 25/- Per week  as  their basic  wages.  Those who are unskilled workmen will get  Rs. 22.50P.  per  week  as their basic wages."  As  regards  the basic. wages of other employees, the Tribunal says : "Now in the  light of the enhanced pay as revised by me, in  respect of skilled, unskilled, semi-skilled and highly skilled  wor- kers,  I  want  to revise" the  existing  wages  of  clerks, drivers,   durwan,   Sweeper,  laboratory   assistants   and overlookers. It  may  be observed that the first passage,  quoted  by  us states   only  the  conclusions.   It  does  not  give   the supporting reasons.  The second passage quoted by us  states merely  on,-- of the, reasons.  The, other relevant  reasons are  not  disclosed.  The giving of reasons  in  support  of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when  exercising  initial  jurisdiction  is  essential   for various  reasons.   First,  it  is  calcultated  to  prevent unconscious  unfairness  or arbitrariness  in  reaching  the conclusions.   The  very  search for reasons  will  put  the authority   on  the  alert  and  minimise  the  chances   of unconscious  infiltration of personal bias or unfairness  in the  conclusion.   The authority will adduce  reason-  which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable  man and  will discard irrelevant or  extraneous  considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done.   Unreasoned conclusions  may be just but they may not appear to be  just to  those who read them.  Reasons conclusions on  the  other hand,  will have also the appearance of justice.  Third,  it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from  the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court  by special leave granted under Art. 136.  A  judgment which  does  not  disclose the reasons, will  be  of  little assistance  to  the  Court.  The Court  will  have  to  wade through  the entire record and find for itself  whether  the decision  in appeal is right or wrong.  In many  cases  this investment  of time and industry will be, saved  if  reasons are given in support of the conclusions.  So it is necessary to  emphasise  that judicial and  quasijudicial  authorities should always give reasons in support of their conclusions. Shri  Sanghi,  counsel for the Woolcombers  Workers’  Union, seeks.  to explain away the absence of reasons in the  award by the argument that the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage.   We  are unable to accept this  argument.   Even  the fixation of the bare minimum wage is the result of a process of  reasoning.   There must be supporting  reasons  for  the

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

quantification  of the bare minimum wage.  But,  as  already stated,  the  Tribunal has not given any reasons at  all  in support  of the basic wages fixed for the  factory  workmen. More importantly, the Tribunal does not appear to have fixed the bare minimum wage.  There are several decisions of  this Court  on the meaning of tile bare minimum wage.   We  shall refer  only  to one of them: Kamani Metals  and  Alloys  vs. Their Workmen.(1) Hidayatullah J. there said :               "To   cope  with  these  differences   certain               principles on which wages are fixed have  been               stated from time to time by this               (1) [1967] 2 L. L. J. 55 at p. 58.               508               Court.  Broadly speaking, the first  principle               is that there is a minimum wage which, in  any               event must be paid, irrespective of the extent               of profits, the financial condition of the es-               tablishment 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 workmen 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." The  referring order of the West Bengal Government does  not ask  the Tribunal to fix the bare minimum wage as  explained in  the aforesaid decision; nor do the pleadings of the  two Unions  set  out a clear and unambiguous plea for  the  bare minimum wage.  Paragraph 6 of the written statement filed by the Issac Holdens Mazdoor Union states that "the  conditions of  service for the workmen have been kept miserably low  on the  lines of the jute workers." Paragraph 8 says  that  the basic wages of workmen of all categories "are low." This, in our  opinion,  is not a clear and unequivocal plea  for  the bare  minimum wage.  Paragraphs 6 and 8 make a statement  of the  factual  position regarding the  condition  of  service including the basic wages in the factory at the time of  the reference  of the, dispute to the Tribunal.  It is no  where stated  in the aforesaid written statement that the  workers were  claiming  bare  minimum wage.   Paragraph  11  of  the written  statement seems to suggest to the contrary.  It  is said in this paragraph that the, claims made in the  written statement  "are  just  and reasonable and  the  Company  has capacity  to  meet these claims." The question  whether  the claim for a particular basic wage is just and reasonable  or whether  the  employer has the capacity to pay  the  claimed basic  wage is wholly irrelevant to the demand of the  bare, minimum wage.  The bare minimum wage, as pointed out in  the Kamani Metals and Alloys vs.  Their Workmen (supra) must  be

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

paid by an employer in spite of want of financial  capacity. The bare minimum wage is the "lowest limit below which wages cannot  be allowed to sink in all humanity." Paragraph 3  of the written statement filed by the Woolcombers Workmen Union states  that  the wages "paid to the workers  are  not  only below  the level of fair wages but far below the  need-based minimum  even as recommended by the Fifteenth Indian  Labour Conference." Paragraph 8 of the written statement reiterates that  the "existing wages in the factory are much below  the need-based minimum." These two paragraphs do not go  509 beyond  stating the factual position in respect of wages  in the  factory. They do not say that the bare minimum wage  is not  being paid nor do they demand it.  Paragraph 7  of  the written statement states that the ,workers have been assured under  the Constitution of India that living wages would  be made  available  to  them.  The concept of  living  wage  is dynamic  and  not static.  It varies from time to  time  and country to country.  Today they need-based minimum wage  for the lowest paid group of the workmen cannot be less than Rs. 240/-  per  month per head.  It was in 1961 that  the  floor level. of fair wage for the working class had been  assessed approximately  at about Rs. 280/- and that of  the  clerical staff  at  Rs. 380/- per month.  The living wages  would  be much higher still.  Since 1961 the cost of living index  has gone very high and as such the amount of need-based  minimum wage  is greater still than what it was in 1961." The  Union goes  on  to add : "The fact remains that the company  is  a fairly  old  one  and it has sufficient  resources  to  make available to its workmen at least fair wages with grades and incremental scale of pay on the basis of skill.  It is  high time  that some progress should be made towards  payment  of living wages to the workmen by introducing grades and scales of  pay  with annual increments." This would  show  that the Woolcombers  Workers’ Union was claiming a basic fair  wage, and  not  the bare minimum wage.’ Nowhere  in  this  written statement there is a clear demand for the bare minimum wage. On  the whole the two written statements, in our view,  seek to  claim a basic fair wage.  The statement of N.  H.  Khan, P.W.  1  "that  the  wages are  very  inadequate  for  their subsistence"  again  is a characterisation of the  rates  of wages  in the factory at the time of the  reference.   Those words  cannot  spell  out a demand for  bare  minimum  wage. Expatiating  on  the workmen’s demand for--the  basic  Wages claimed in their statement, N; H. Khan later said that "when we,  say  that our demand for wages is  need-based,  I  mean that.  my.  children  will have  adequate  food  and  proper clothing and expens‘s for education.  I mean by that we want minimum  wages." Our attention was also drawn by Mr.  Sanghi to the statement of G. Ghorai to this effect : "I have 7 de- pendents.   One  of them is of school going age.   I  cannot send  her  to  school.  I have two children,  elder  is  the daughter.   She  is  6  years.  My  brother  who  is  15  is unemployed.   He  cannot be sent to school nor  my  daughter because  of  paucity of money.  We, seven live in  one  room flat at a rent of Rs. 151- per month.  My expenses only  for marketing  for  daily needs e.g.  vegetables,  salt,  onion, ginger  come to Rs. 40/- per month.  I do not buy any  milk. My  expenses for fuel and kerosene oil come to Rs. 16/-  per month.  I cannot make both ends meet by, my. monthly pay.  I am  in constant debt." This statement is again factual.   It is  perhaps a vivid description of the workers’  plight  .It the  time of the reference of the dispute to  the  Tribunal. It  does not, however, state that the basic wage claimed  in the written statement is the bare minimum wage.  It is  true

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

that N. H. Khan has said that we want minimum wage," but  he has  clarified what he meant by "minimum wag,--."  According to him, minimum wage must include expenses for the education of  the workers’ children.  But a basic wage which  provides for the, education of the workers’ children is riot the bare minimum wage: it-is fair wage. (See Kamani Metals and Alloys Ltd. v.,;. Their Workmen (supra) at page 58). 7-L382 Sup. c1/74 510 In  fixing  the  basic  wages,  the  Tribunal  states:   "In increasing  basic  wage as I am proposing to do I  am  quite alive  to the fact that the said wage rate cannot be in  any way fair wage let alone living wage but keeping in view  the financial  position of the company as it is now as also  the nature of work they do along with their respective skill,  I am increasing the wage-structure at the rates prescribed  by me. According  to  Shri Sanghi, this passage  clearly  indicates that the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage.  We  have already  pointed  out that the referring order of  the  West Bengal  Government did not ask the Tribunal to fix the  bare minimum  wage.   It is also necessary to point out  at  this stage  that  apart from the aforesaid passage in  the  award there  is no reference at any other place therein  that  the bare  minimum  wage was being granted to the  workmen.   The financial  capacity of an employer does not enter  into  the scale  in  the fixation of the bare minimum  wage.   But  in fixing   the  basic  wages  the  Tribunal   has   admittedly considered  the financial capacity of the  Woolcombers.   It would  suggest that the Tribunal has really fixed the  basic fair  wage.   So  when the Tribunal says  in  the  aforesaid passage  that the basic wages fixed by it "cannot be in  any way  fair wage" it does not really mean to say that  it  was fixing  the  bare  minimum wage.  It seems to  us  that  the Tribunal  really  wanted to emphasise the fact  that  having regard  to the financial capacity of the woolcombers it  was not  awarding more than the floor level of the fair wage  to the  workmen.  So we do not agree with Shri Sanghi that  the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage.  Now, the  absence of reasons in support of the conclusions is indeed a serious flaw  in the award.  However, the award cannot be set  aside simply on that score, if there is evidence on the record  in support  of the Tribunal’s conclusion.  Accordingly we  have gone through the entire evidence on record. It  is  now  well-settled  that  basic  wage  and   dearness allowance should be determined in the light of the industry- cum-region  formula  and  the  financial  condition  of   an employer.   So the evidence win have to be examined  in  the light of these two principles. Industry-cum-region formula : For  fixing  basic wages and dearness  allowance  industrial adjudication  sometimes  leans on the industry part  of  the industry-cumregion formula and at other times on the  region part  of  that formula.  The industry part  of  the  formula becomes  relevant  when  the  business  carried  on  by  the employer  before industrial adjudication is also carried  on by  several  other concerns in the region in which  the  em- ployer is working. (See Greeves Cotton and Co. and others v. Their  Workmen(1)  The industry part of the formula  is  not applicable  in this case because admittedly the  Woolcombers is  the only concern in the region carrying on the  business of woolcombing.  Besides woolcombing, Woolcombers comb  also Rayon, Nylon, Terelene, Terine, (1)  [1964] 5 S. C. R. 362  511

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

Visocose, Tery-cotton and Posmina.  This case is accordingly governed  by  the  region part  of  the  industry-cum-region formula.  (See  Greaves Cotton and Co. and others  v.  Their Workmen (Supra). The region part of the industry-cum-region formula  requires that  comparable  concerns should nearly be similar  to  the line  of  business  carried  on  by  the  ’employer   before industrial  adjudication(See  French Motor Car Co.  Ltd.  v. Workmen(1).   The  argument of the  Woolcombers  before  the Tribunal  was and still is that there are a large number  of jute  mills  in the vicinity of their factory and  that  the line  of business carried on by them is similar to the  line of  business  carried on in the  woolcombers  factory.   The Tribunal  rejected this argument.  The Tribunal has  pointed out  that it is true that some jobs in the  Woolcombers  and jute mills are similar.  Nevertheless it has taken the  view that  the Woolcombers cannot compared with the  jute  mills. It has elaborately inted out the material differences in the jobs  in  the  Woolcombers and jute mills.  The  workmen  of Woolcombers handle finer and costlier articles.  The working operations  in  the  Woolcombers  are  more  strenuous   and perilous.  The raw materials require more skilful,  handling and  more attention and the products are to be handled  much more carefully than the products of jute mill.  Wool has got many more varieties than jute.  The shortest length of  jute is  3 feet, while that of wool is two inches.  The  Tribunal has  concluded:" (From the entire evidence it is clear  from start to finish in case of Woolcombers’ work it is not  only more  exacting in spite of its apparent similarity but  also call for more skill." I  has  been urged by Shri Chaudhary  that  the  differences pointed  out by the Tribunal in the performance of  jobs  in the  woolcombers  and jute mills are not borne  out  by  the evidence  on record and that they are not material  for  the purpose  of  deciding  whether  jute  mills  are  comparable concerns.  it has come in the evidence of workmen that  many of  them work in conditions of "intense heat": and  this  is admitted also by the Woolcombers witness, B. B. Roy.  One of the workmen’s witness has stated that often workers faint on account of working in intense heat.  Again, the evidence  of the  workmen  also  shows that many of  them  work  in  high powered light which causes very great strain on their  eyes. B. B. Roy has also admitted that some of the workers work in very  difficult conditions of dust.  In short, the  evidence shows  that the work in the Woolcombers requires  much  more caution,  precision and attention than the work in the  jute mills.  Naturally, the workers are put to much’ more. mental and physical strain than the workers in the jute mills. B.   B.  Roy, Woolcombers, witness, has compared the job  of certain  workmen in the Woolcombers with the job of  workmen in  the  jute mills.  For instance, according  to  him  Soap makers’  job in the Woolcombers is similar to Emulsion  Tank Attendant of Anglo (1)  [1963] Stipp. 2 S. C. R. 16 at page 22. 512 India Jute Mills.  Soap makers’ job, according to him, is to make   Soap  solution  in  a  tank,,  while  Emulsion   Tank Attendants’ job is to make emulsion of soap, oil and  water- He has made similar comparisons between other jobs.  Sensory similarities  in  jobs may be taken  into  consideration  in finding  out comparable concerns in the region, but  in  our judgment   they   should  not  be  regarded   as   decisive. Industrial  adjudication should also give due weight to  the widely disparate skill and mental and physical strain in the performance  of  jobs.  Greater skill, like  greater  merit,

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

should   ordinarily  receive  more   material   recognition. Greater   mental   and  physical  strain  calls   for   more expenditure  on  the workers renewal of himself  and  should accordingly be better rewarded.  No workman will be  willing to  entertain  an arduous and perilous task  for  inadequate remuneration.   Inadequate remuneration will not conduce  to industrial peace.  Considering all the circumstances of  the case,  we think that the Tribunal has not gone wrong in  its conclusion that the Woolcombers cannot be compared with jute mills. Shri  Chaudhary’s  main grievance is that the  Tribunal  has made  no endeavour to select for comparison concerns  nearly similar   to  the  line  of  business  carried  on  by   the Woolcombers.  We are satisfied that it is a just  grievance. The  Tribunal  has  given  no  reasons  in  support  of  its conclusion  regarding  the fixation of the basic  wages  and dearness  allowance.   Nor has it compared  the  Woolcombers with any other concern.  The workmen no doubt produced  some oral  evidence  in  respect of  certain  concerns.   In  his evidence   Nabi  Hasan  Khan  has  sought  to  compare   the Wooloombers with the Hindustan Lever Ltd., Exide  Associated Battery,  National Insulated Cable Co., Titaghar Paper  Mill No.  2,  Calcutta  Electric  Supply,  Shyamnagar  Works  and Incheck   Tyre.   Those  concerns  are  situated  near   the Woolombers’  factory.   The workmen also examined  P.D-  Rai Bhar  from  Hindustan Lever Ltd., Amrit  Lal  Karmakar  from Titaghar  Paper  Mill  No. 2 and Binoy  Kumar  Ganguli  from Rolling  and Steel Ropes Ltd. to show that the  basic  wages and  dearness  allowance  payable to the  workers  of  those concerns were much higher than the basic wages and  dearness allowance  paid to the workmen of the Woolcombers.  It  does not seem that the Tribunal has relied on the workmen’s  oral evidence.  it  has  merely commented  that  presumably  this evidence had been led for the purpose of "impressing upon me that  the  basic  wages  and  dearness  allowance  of  those concerns....  are  much higher ’than those  enjoyed  by  the employees of the Woolcombers." Indeed  the Tribunal could not rely on this  oral  evidence. The  workmen did not specify in their written statement  the names   of   the  comparable  concerns   in.   the   region. Accordingly  the  Woolcombers could not  have  a  reasonable opportunity  of  effective confrontation of,  the  workmen’s witnesses.   More importantly, it should be remembered  that "in  dealing with the comparable character of an  industrial undertaking;  the industrial adjudication does  not  usually rely on oral evidence alone.  This question  513 is  considered  in  the  light  of  material  evidence   and circumstances  which  are generally  proved  by  documentary evidence.   What  is  the, total  capital  invested  by  the concern,  what  is the extent of its business, what  is  the order  of  the  profits made by the concern,  what  are  the dividends  paid,  how  many employees are  employed  by  the concern  what  is its standing in the industry to  which  it belongs,  these  and other matters have. to be  examined  by industrial  adjudication in determining the question  as  to whether one concern is comparable with another in the matter of  fixing wages.  Now, it is obvious that  these  questions cannot be decided merely on the interested testimony  either of the workmen, or of the employer and his witnesses." (See Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Co. v. Balmer Lawrie and Co.(1) The absence of any documentary evidence is a fatal defect in the  circumstances  of this case.   Accordingly,  we  cannot uphold  the  Tribunal’s award on basic  wages  and  dearness allowance.

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

The  question now is : What course should we adopt?  We  can set aside the award and direct the Tribunal to make a  fresh award  after  allowing the parties to  produce  evidence  in relation  to comparable concerns in the region.   The  other course is to call for a finding from the Tribunal in  regard to  basic wages and dearness allowance in the light  of  our judgment.  The adoption of the first course may unduly delay the final award, for it is not improbable that an appeal may be  filed  in  this  Court against  the  fresh  award.   The reference  was made some time in June, 1968 and  five  years have already gone by without the award becoming final.   The adoption of the second course, on tie other hand, is  likely to  avoid undue delay.  It appears to us that having  regard to  the  circumstances  of this case, we  should  adopt  the second course.  We would defer our decision on the  question of financial capacity of the industry to bear the burden  of the  increased basic wages and dearness allowance  till  the finding of the Tribunal is received by this Court. While  selecting comparable concerns in the region  for  the purpose of determining basic wages and dearness allowance of the workmen of the Woolcombers, the Tribunal should bear  in mind that the selected concerns are as nearly similar to the line of business carried on by the Woolcombers as  possible. The  selected  concerns  should  not  be  disproportionately larger than the Woolcombers.  The concerns should as far  as possible be compared with the Woolcombers (1)  [1964] 5 S. C. R. 344 at page 353. 514 as  to their standing, extent of their labour force,  extent of  their  customers, their profit and losses and  an  other relevant considerations. We  direct  the Tribunal to record a fresh  finding  on  the quantum  of  the  basic  wages  and  dearness  allowance  by applying the region part of the industry-cum-region  formula and  in the light of our judgment.  Parties are  allowed  to adduce  their evidence on this limited question  only.   The Tribunal  should send its finding to this Court within  four months  from  the  receipt of the record  from  this  Court. Costs will abide the event. S. C. 515