# • 666 WORKMEN OF ORIENT PAPER MILI.S LTD. BRAJRAJNAGAR v. M/S. ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD - **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 666 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1968-08-13 - **Bench:** J. M. Shela°!, V. BHARGAVA Ai':D C. A. VAIDIALINGAM - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/666-workmen-of-orient-paper-mili-s-ltd-brajrajnagar-v-m-s-orient-paper-mills-ltd-4465 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote Industrial Dispute-Minimum Wag~s-Industry.cum·Renion princi· pie-Applicability whe11 there H'ere no conzparable industries in the satne line of business-Linking of dearness allowance elen1ent of minimuni wages u·ith price index-If obligatory-Industrial Tribunal-Duty to decide dispute ll.S referred. An industrial dispute regarding fixation of wages and bonus, between the respondent-paper mills and il• workmen, the appellants, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in October, 1962, and the reference included a dispute about bonus payable for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The Tribuoal held: (1) that there were in the regioo no other concerns in lhe same line of business v.·hich could he compa-red \vith the respondent hut that there were three colliericc;1 a steel plant, a cement factory and an aluminium company in the region \vhich were comparable with the res· pondf:'nt, that as the minimum wage in those industries v.·hich was about Rs. 95 was above that of the respondent, a revision of the minimum wage in the respondent-mills was justified, that such minimum wage sbould be fixed for the price index prevailing at the time of the award taking 100 as the basic index for the year 1939, and that on that basis, the basic wage and dearness allowance should be Rs. 73, and that Rs. 11 was payable as production bonus; ( 2) that the dearness allo\Vancc clement need not be linked to the price index, but that wage should be fixed at the prevailing price index leaving it to the workmen to ask for increase in mini· mum wage on any further rise in p'ricc index; (3) that the revised wages were payable with effect from 13th December, 1962; (4) that the three clements of basic wage, dearness allowance. and producHon bonus which make up the total minimum wage packet of Rs, 84 (Rs. 73 +Rs. 11) should be in the proportion of 3 : 3 : 1, and that profit bonus was payable at three months' basic wage. The proportion of 3 : 3 : 1 was fixed by the Tribunal, because. under an agreement of 1959 the management and v..·ork.mcn accepted that proportion by mutual consent. On the basis of that agreement, the Tribunal also held that; (5) casual workers should not be equated to pcnnancnt Y/orkcrs for purpose of minimum \vages, and that casual and bad/i workers should not be allowed bonus on the same hasis as the permanent workers; (6) The appellant~ also claimed before the Trihunal 6 months' basic \\'age instead of 3 n1onths' ba\ic wage, which Yl-'as being paid by the respondent, on the asswnption that certain derical staff Y:cre being paid as bonus 3 months' consolidated wage COD· sisting of basic \\'age and dearness atlov.·ance; but the Tribunal rejected the claim. Jn ap!'C"l to this Court. HELD : ( 1) This Court laid down in Frc11c/J Motor Car Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmc11. [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16, that where there is no concern in th-e same industry in the region comparable with the ~nccrn in wh.ich \\'ages have to be fixed, greater emphasis should be l:ud on the reg10.n part of the industry-cunt-region principle. To give. ~ult effect t? thtS rule the Tribunal should have proceeded to fix the m1n1mum wage 1n the respondent-mills on the basis of the average minimum \vage prevailing - A B c D E F G H • A B c D E F G H WORKMEN v. ORIENT PAPER MILLS (Bhargava, J.) 667 in the other industries in that region. The respondent 'Yas not p~o~ding any amenitk~s which should be ~a.ken into. account in fixing the ~um wage, different from the amen1tJ.es provided by those c~ncerns in the region which were being compared. Therefore, the Tribunal. should have fixed the minimum wage packet at Rs. 95 per mensem which was the average wage pP:!vailing in. all thnse _concerns a~d should not have fixed the wages on an entirely different basis. [671 F-H; 672 G-H] (2) The Industrial Tribunal has the discretion, in appropriate cases, of making a direction linking the dearness allowa.i:ce el~me~t of a w!lge to the price index, or to fix the wage at the preva1hng p'r1ce mde~ leavu;ig the ## Text • 666 WORKMEN OF ORIENT PAPER MILI.S LTD. BRAJRAJNAGAR v. M/S. ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. August 13, 1968 [J. M. SHELA°!', V. BHARGAVA Ai':D C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J Industrial Dispute-Minimum Wag~s-Industry.cum·Renion princi· pie-Applicability whe11 there H'ere no conzparable industries in the satne line of business-Linking of dearness allowance elen1ent of minimuni wages u·ith price index-If obligatory-Industrial Tribunal-Duty to decide dispute ll.S referred. An industrial dispute regarding fixation of wages and bonus, between the respondent-paper mills and il• workmen, the appellants, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in October, 1962, and the reference included a dispute about bonus payable for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The Tribuoal held: (1) that there were in the regioo no other concerns in lhe same line of business v.·hich could he compa-red \vith the respondent hut that there were three colliericc;1 a steel plant, a cement factory and an aluminium company in the region \vhich were comparable with the res· pondf:'nt, that as the minimum wage in those industries v.·hich was about Rs. 95 was above that of the respondent, a revision of the minimum wage in the respondent-mills was justified, that such minimum wage sbould be fixed for the price index prevailing at the time of the award taking 100 as the basic index for the year 1939, and that on that basis, the basic wage and dearness allowance should be Rs. 73, and that Rs. 11 was payable as production bonus; ( 2) that the dearness allo\Vancc clement need not be linked to the price index, but that wage should be fixed at the prevailing price index leaving it to the workmen to ask for increase in mini· mum wage on any further rise in p'ricc index; (3) that the revised wages were payable with effect from 13th December, 1962; (4) that the three clements of basic wage, dearness allowance. and producHon bonus which make up the total minimum wage packet of Rs, 84 (Rs. 73 +Rs. 11) should be in the proportion of 3 : 3 : 1, and that profit bonus was payable at three months' basic wage. The proportion of 3 : 3 : 1 was fixed by the Tribunal, because. under an agreement of 1959 the management and v..·ork.mcn accepted that proportion by mutual consent. On the basis of that agreement, the Tribunal also held that; (5) casual workers should not be equated to pcnnancnt Y/orkcrs for purpose of minimum \vages, and that casual and bad/i workers should not be allowed bonus on the same hasis as the permanent workers; (6) The appellant~ also claimed before the Trihunal 6 months' basic \\'age instead of 3 n1onths' ba\ic wage, which Yl-'as being paid by the respondent, on the asswnption that certain derical staff Y:cre being paid as bonus 3 months' consolidated wage COD· sisting of basic \\'age and dearness atlov.·ance; but the Tribunal rejected the claim. Jn ap!'C"l to this Court. HELD : ( 1) This Court laid down in Frc11c/J Motor Car Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmc11. [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16, that where there is no concern in th-e same industry in the region comparable with the ~nccrn in wh.ich \\'ages have to be fixed, greater emphasis should be l:ud on the reg10.n part of the industry-cunt-region principle. To give. ~ult effect t? thtS rule the Tribunal should have proceeded to fix the m1n1mum wage 1n the respondent-mills on the basis of the average minimum \vage prevailing - A B c D E F G H • A B c D E F G H WORKMEN v. ORIENT PAPER MILLS (Bhargava, J.) 667 in the other industries in that region. The respondent 'Yas not p~o~ding any amenitk~s which should be ~a.ken into. account in fixing the ~um wage, different from the amen1tJ.es provided by those c~ncerns in the region which were being compared. Therefore, the Tribunal. should have fixed the minimum wage packet at Rs. 95 per mensem which was the average wage pP:!vailing in. all thnse _concerns a~d should not have fixed the wages on an entirely different basis. [671 F-H; 672 G-H] (2) The Industrial Tribunal has the discretion, in appropriate cases, of making a direction linking the dearness allowa.i:ce el~me~t of a w!lge to the price index, or to fix the wage at the preva1hng p'r1ce mde~ leavu;ig the labour to raise a fresh demand and, if necessary, a fresh 1ndustr1al dispute for further rise in wages, in case there is marked variation in the pric;, index and the wage fixed becomes outdated; and therefore. the Tribunal was not wrong in choosing the latter alternative. [674 F-G; 675 BJ Hydro (Engineers), v. The Workmen, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 156, referred to. (3) This direction was objected to by respondonts, on the ground that the respondent may have to pay arrears for 5 or 6 years which would be a heavy burden. But the previous agreement of 1959 was binding only upto 12th Dec·omber, 1962. So, the Tribunal was right in directing that the revised wages should take effect from 13th December, 1962, in view of the considerable rise in the price index and the fact that the labour had not raised a fresh dispute for a further revision of wages since the date of the award. [675 G-H] (4) No errcir was committed by the Tribunal in the break-up of the wages into the 3 elements of basic wage, dearness allowance and production bonus in the proportion of 3 : 3 : 1. The contention of the workmen that the proportion should be 3 : 1 : 1 : so as to increase the basic wage element and conscque.ntly the profit bonus, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal, because. the proportion of 3 : 3 : 1 ·Was accepted by mutual consent. [674 B-C] (5) The distinction In-tween casual wo'rkers and permanent workers for purpo&e df minimum wage, and casual and badli workers on the one hand: and permanent. v.'orkers on the other for purpose of bonus, was recognised by the parties themselves in the agreement of 1959, and therefore, the Tribunal was right in keeping up the distinction in its award. [675 D-E; 678 B-C] . (6) The allegation that some cle.rical staff was receiving: what amounted to 6 months' basic wage as bonus was incorr•:xt. There was same cl~ical staff which did not get any dearness allowance and the bonus in their ca~e was worked out on the basis of the.ir wages which was only the basic wage. The appellants were wrong in assuming that the wage of such clerical staff was a consolidated wage consisting of the 2 elements , of bas1? wage and de,arness allowance. Therefore, the appellants could· not claim 3 months' consolidated wages as bonus which would amount t(} 6 months' basic wage. [677 G-H; 678 A-Bl It could not be urged by the appellants that calculation of available surplus for purposes of bonus should have IY-..,en on the basis of the Full Bench formula approved by this Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1959] S.C.R. 925, for justifying 6 months' basic wa~es as bonus, because, that was not the basis of the claim before the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal was expected to decide the dispute only as referred to it, and at the time of the reference the accounts for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 could not have been available, and therefore; 668 SUPREhlE COCRT REPORTS [ 1969] I SC.R. ther~ c~ul was covered by items Nos. 1. 3. 4. 22 and 26 in the Schedule attached to the Order of Reference. The second matter in the appeal related to bonus covered by item No. 2 nf that Schedule. In the course of the hearing of the appeal. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen further gave up some of the points which were the subject-matter of the items mentioned above, so that in this judgment we need deal with only those points which were argued by him in support of the appeal. The first and the main point argued with regard to wages was that the Tribunal, after holding that there was no identical industry in· this region comparable with the Company, came to the view that there were other industries in the region in which minimum wages were hi~her than the minimum wages paid hy the Company, but failed to fix the minimum wages in the award in accordance· with the minimum wages being pa.id in those industries. Instead. what the Tribunal did was to work out the minimum wages, whic!i should be paid, on an entirely different basis. It was also urged in the alternative that, even in adopting the latter course, the Tribunal committed an error inasmuch as. in making the calculation. the Tribunal only tried to neutralise about 36- per cent of the cost of living on the basis of the rise in Price Index instead c D E F G II A B ·C E F H WORKMEN v. ORIENT PAPER MILLS (Bhargava, J.) 669 of permitting neutralisation to the extent of at least 90%' which should have been done when fixing the minimum wages for the lowest class of workmen. The principle for fixation of minimum wages that should ordinarily be adopted was laid down by this Court in the case of French Motor Car Co. Limited. v. Workmen(') where it was held:- "It is now well-settled that the principle vf industrycum-region has to be applied by an Industrial Court, when it proceeds to consider questions like wage structure, dearness allowance and similar conditions of service. In applying that principle, industrial courts have to compare wage scales prevailing in similar concerns in the region with which it is dealing, and generally speaking similar concerns would be those in the same line of business as the concern with respect to which the dispute is under consideration. Further, ev,n in the same line of business, it would not be proper to compare (for example) a small struggling concern with a large flourishing concern." The Tribunal, in giving its decision, kept this principle in view, but came to the finding of fact that there were no other concerns in the same line of business as the Company in the region which could be compared with the Company. The Tribunal found that there are only two other paper mills in the region. They are th~ Titaghur Paper Mill No. 3 situated at Chaudwar, and the J. K. Paper Mills at Rayagada. The Tribunal found that the Company is an old established business carrying on manufacture of paper on a very large scale. The Titaghur Paper Mill No. 3 started production only in April, 1960, while the J. K. Paper Mills at Rayagada started production in 1961-62. These two Paper Mills were, therefore, both of very recent origin compared with the Company. The strength of their labour-force and the annual production were also very much lower. Even the profits earned were much smaller. On these facts, the Tribunal held that it would not be proper to compare the wage structure for these Paper Mills with that of the Company. This is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and nothing has been shown by learned counsel for the Company which would induce us to interfere with this finding of fact. In fact, learned counsel was unable to urge that this finding of fact suffered from any error at all. On this . .finding, 1 it is clear that the region-cum-industry principle laid down in the case of French Motor Car Co. Ltd. (1) could not have been applied by the Tribunal when fixing the wages in the Company. (1) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16. 670 SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS [ 1969] 1 S.C.R. This Court in the same case of the French Motor Car Co.(') further indicated what principles should be adopted in such a situation where there is no concern in the same industry in the region comparable with the concern in which wages have to be fixed. That situation was envisaged as occurring whenever the particular concern in question happens to be already payi!ll>, the highest wages in its particular line of business. It was held that in such a case : "there should be greater emphasis on the region part of the industry-cum-region principle, though 11 wouid be the duty of the industrial court to see that for purposes of comparison such other industries in the region are taken into account as are as nearly similar to the concern before it as possible. Though, therefore, in a case where a particular concern is already paying the highest wages in its own line of business, the indu'1rial courts would be justified in looking at wages paid in that region in other lines of business, it should take care to see that the concerns from other lines of business taken into account are such as arc as nearly similar as possible. to the line of business carried on by the concern before it. It should also take care to see that such concerns arc not so disproportionately large as to afford no proper basis for comparison." In the light of these views which were brought to the notice of the Tribunal. the Tribunal proceeded to consider the minimum wage3 paid by three Collieries. Orient Colliery. Ibe Colliery 3nd Him5iriRampur Colliery, the Rourkela Steel Plant, the Cement f.lctory at Rajgangpur and the Indian Aluminium Company, Hirakud which the Tribunal found were simatcd not very far away from the place where the Company had its factory. The Tdhunal mentioned that, according to the Coal Award, the minimum wage in the Collieries at the then existing Price Index was Rs. 93· 7-0; in the Cement Factory Rs. 96.88; in the Steel Plant Rs. 95.00 and in the Aluminium Company Rs. 97.84 nP. The Tribunal then also took into account the minimum wages being paid by other Paper Mills situated outside the region and thereafter recorded its own decision in the following words :-· "The conclusion that flows from these figures is rhat the lowest paid worker in the Paper Mill. at Brajrajnagar gets more than \vhat is paid as nlinimum 'vage in the other two Paocr Mills of Orissa, hut it is less -than what is paid to the lowest paid worker in some of rhc Paoer Mills outside the State. Tn other industries. which arc comparatively close to the paoer incll'stry at (I) [19631 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16. A B - c I> E G H • WORKMEN v. ORIENT PAPER MILLS (Bhargava, l.) &71 A Brajrajnagar, the minimum wage is above Rs. 90 in almost all the cases." B c D E F G H On the basis of this finding of fact, the Tribunal held that, if t~e minimum wage in the Coml?any !s to be !Jxed ~ore on the b~1s of the minimum wage prevaihng m other mdustnes m that region which, in its opinion, would be apprnpnate under the Clfcumstances of the case, then, a revision was really necessary. We think that the criticism of learned counsel for the workmen that the Tribunal committed an error at this stage in merely holding that the facts found by it justified a revision and in not proceed- . ing to fix minimum wages on the basis of the other indu~tries in the region, is fully justified. It is to be noted that there 1s no mention in the award of the Tribunal that the Company at any stage put forward the case that the Collieries, the Steel Plant, the Cement Factory, and the Aluminium Company were concerns which were not comparable with the Company. In fact, in the course of arguments before us, we asked learned ·counsel for the Company to point out whether such a plea was taken at any stage by the Company and whether evidence was led to show that these concerns were not comparable with the Company. Learned counsel had to admit that no specific plea was taken by the Company in this behalf and at least no evidence at all was led to show that these concerns are not comparable with the Company. The workmen in their written statement had relied on the wage structure in these concerns obviously on the basis that they were comparable. Since the Company never took the plea that they were not comparable, no occasion arose for the workmen to give evidence of the concerns being comparable. In fact, :he Tribunal also accepted them as being comparable and that is why, in its conclusion, the Tribunal held that, in its opinion, it would be appropriate under the circumstances of the case to fix the minimum. ~age_ in the ~ompa~y ~n the basi~ of the minimum wage prevailing m other mdustnes m that region. By the expression "other industries in the region" the Tribunal w11s obviously referring to these concerns. Having come to this view, it is clear !IJat, to give full effect to the principle laid down by this Court lil the case of French Motor Car Co. (1), the Tribunal should have proceeded to fix the minimum wage in the Company on the basis of the average minimum wage prevailing in these concerns. We ~ave already quoted the figures of the minimum wage prevailing m these concerns. On their basis, it appears to us that there will be full justification for fixing the minimum wage in the Company at Rs. 9 5 per mensum which is about the average of the wages prevailing in all those concerns. In this connection, we may take notice of the fact that, in the written statement of the workmen, the minimum wages prevailing in these concerns were (I) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16. 672 SUPREME COt:RT REPORTS (l 969] I S.C.R. shown at figures lower than those mentioned by the Tribunal; but it appears that those lower figures were given, because: the wages mcmioned in the written statement were based on a lower Price Index. The Tribunal considered the minimum wages in these concerns on the ba\is of the prevailing Price lnde.{ of 441 at Sambalpur taking JOO as the basic Price Index for thr year 1939. Evcn when fixing the minimum wage· for the Company en the basis of the alternative calculation made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has proceeded on the a\sumption that the minimum wagci is being fixed for the Price Index No. 441 prevailing at the time of the award taking JOO a' the basic index for the year 1939. In these circumstances, we think that the minimum wage in the Company should have been fixed by the Tribunal a1 Rs. 95 per mensem, following the principle laid down by this Ccurt in the case of French ·Motor Car Co. (1). The Tribunal should not have proceeded to make the alternative calculation on some other basis so as to arrive at a lower figure of Rs. 73 p.m. a<; the wage covering the basic wage and the dearness allowance, in addition to Rs. 11 p.rn. payable as production bonus. Learned counsel for the Company urged before us that the. principle of fixation of wages on the basis of comparison in the region laid down in the French Motor Car Co.'s case(') is not rigid, and it is not necessary that the minimum wage in the Company must be fixed at the .average level of wages in the other comparable industries in the region. According to him, note should be taken of the fact that, at least in the paper industrJ in this area. the other concerns are paying much lllwcr wag~s. This point has to be rejected straightaway in view of the finding that those concerns arc very small and not comparable with the Company. It was also urged that, in fixing the minimum wage, the wages payable in the paper industry in other parts of the country should also be kept in view. We do not think that such a consideration should be taken into account when applying the principle of fixing the minimum wage primarily on the basis of comparison between different industries in the same region. Finally, it was argued that other amenities heing provided by the Company should also be taken into account when fixing the minimum wage. In this case. however, there is nothing 10 show that the· Company is providing :my such amenities whi.:h arc different from the amenities that arc being provided by those concerns in the region which are being compared with the Company for the purpose of fixation of the minimum wage. Consequently, we do not think that there is any justification '<>r dcp"'ting from the figure of Rs. 95 which is th!! average minimum wage · payable by those industries. (l) [1963) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16. A 8 c D E F G II A • B c ... D E F G H _I WORKMEN v. ORIENT PAPER MILLS (Bhargava, J.) 673 We may, at this stage, take notice of the. fact that, in considering the question of minimum wage, the Tnbunal had 111 view the total wage packet to be received by each workman anJ, 111 the opinion of the Tribunal, it consisted of three elements. These elements are basic wage, dearness allowance and producuon bonus. The Tribnnal, in its award, held that the minimum wage ih so far as it consists of basic wage and dearness allowance, should be fixed at Rs. 73 and there should be paid, in addition, production bonus to the extent of Rs. 11 in each case. Thus, the total minimum wage packet which a workman should be entitled to receive was fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 84. It is for this figure of Rs. 84 that we think the Tribunal should have substituted the figure of Rs. 95. From the facts noted in the Award or appearing on the record, it appears that production bonus, in addition to the minimum wage, is payable in the case of Aluminium Company, Hirakud; but there does not appear to be any production bonus payable in the three Collieries, in the Steel Plant and in the Cement Factory. In the majority of the industries, which are being compared with the Company in the region, consequently, the minimum wage is the total wage packet r.:ceivable by the workman and there is no extra amount received a,; production bonus. There is only an exception in the case of Indian Aluminium Company. That particular Company, it appears, has some special features which have been brought out in the evidence of the Management's witness, B. B. Panda. He has stated that the Aluminium Factory at Hirakud carries on its work with the help of highly automatic machines and is supplied electricity by the Government at subsidised rates. The nature of work is such that the total number of workmen employed does not exceed 125 which is a very small number as compared with the number of workmen employed by the Company. It is clear that, in the Aluminium Factory, the number of workmen who have to be paid production bonus is very small and almost in'ignificant as comPared with the number in the Company. In these circumstances, it would be more appropriate to compare the total wage packet of the Company with the wage packet received by the workmen of other industries in the region, viz., the three Collieries, the Rourkela Steel Plant, and the Cement Factory at Rajgangpur. Comnaring with them, there is justification for fJXing the total wage packet of the workmen in the Company at R,;, 95 which would include nroduction bonus. So far as annual profit bonus is concerned, it is payable in the Company also as in those other concerns. Consfquently, in varying the award of the Tribunal, we would direct that the total minimum wage packet of a workman in the Comnanv shall be fixed at Rs. 95 consisting of the three elements of basic wage, dearness allowance and production bonus. The break-un of this wage into the three elements is of some importance in this case because of the principle on which the SIJPRE:VIE COURT RF.PORTS ( 1969 J I S.C.R. profit bonus is paid by this Company. The profit bonus that is paid is three months' basic wage and docs not 1ab~ into account the dearness allowance and the production bonus ckmcnts of the total wage. The Company has always treated the total wage of a workman as consisting of these three elements in the proportion' of 3 : 3 : 1. On behalf of the workmen, it was urged before the Tribunal that the proportion should be 3 : 1 : l, so that the production bonus and the dearness allowance woulJ bmh be equal and I/3rd of the basic wage. This pica of 1hc workmen was rejected by the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the other break-up urged on behalf of the Company was th0 break-up which had been accepted by mutual consent between the workmen and the Company in an earlier settlement which had been arrived at in the year 1959. We are unable to hold that the Tribunal committed any error in arriving at this decision and, consequently, the total minimum wage fixed by us must also be deemed to have the same break-up. As a result, it would hav~ to he held that the total minimum wage of Rs. 95 will consist 61 Rs. 41 as basic wage, Rs. 41 as dearness allowance and Rs. 13 as production bonus. ' In connection with the fixation of minimum wage, one point vehemently argued by learned counsel for the workmen was that at least the dearness allowance element of the wag~ 'hould have been made variable with the Price Index, so that the labour could automatically be compensated for further rise in the cost of living subsequent to the making of the award. Learned counsel was, however, unable to show to us that tl1is Court or any •.Jthcr Tribunal has ever laid down the principle that, where the dearness allowance i forms a part of the consolidated wage fixed, there should be such linking so as to bring in continuous variation of tl1e wage, depending on the variation in the Price Index. It appears to us that an Industrial Tribunal has the discretion, in appropriate cases, of making a direction linkir:g the dearness allowance clement of a wage to the Price Index; but, at the same time, the Tribunal is entitled to choose the alternative course of fixing the wage at the prevailing Price Index and kaving 1hc labour to raise a fresh demand and, if necessary, a fr~sh industrial dispute for further rise in wages, in case there is marked variation in the Price Index and the wage fixed in the award becomes out-dated. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in Hydro (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. v. Th•! Workmen,<') where also the Court did not hold that it was compulsory to link minimum wage with the cost of living index and only envisaged that such linking may be permissible by holding that :- "It is thus clear that the concept of minimum wage does take in the factor of the prevailing cost of essen- (1) (1969] I S.C.R. 156. A B c D E F G H i .. • A B c D ·E F WORKMEN v. ORIENT PAPER MILLS (Bhargava, J.) 675 tial commodities whenever such minimum wage is to be fixed. The idea of fixing such wage in the light of cost of living at a particular junctur~ of time ~~ of neu.tralising the rising pr!c".8 of essential ~ommodittes by ~ ing up scales of nnrumum w~ges with .the cost of livmg index cannot therefore, be said to be alien to the concept of a minimu'm wage." ' In the present case, the Tribunal .~chose the course of leaving it to the workmen to ask for increase in minimum wage on any further rise in Price Index and ,did not consider it advisable to link the wages with it. In fact, from the Award, it appears that, so far as the Tribunal was concerned, the workmen did not press for such linking when the award was being given. Consequently, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal has committed any error and that, in this respect, any interference by us is called for. The only other point argued before us in respect of wages by learned counsel was that casual workers should also be paid minimum wages on the. srune basis as the permanent workers for whom the minimum wage was fixed by the Tribunal which is being varied by us by increasing it to a total wage packet of Rs. 95. It appears that the Tribunal did not accept this demand primarily on the ground that the distinction between casual workers and the permanent workers was recognised by both the parties in the agreement of 1959. It may be noticed that, by the very nature of .employment being casual, it can be presumed that a casual worker is on a lower footing and cannot expect the srune wages as a permanent employee. Therefore, the decision by the Tribunal not to equate the casual workers with the penuanent employees cannot be held to be incorrect and must be upheld. The Tribunal had directed that the increase of R~. 12 p.m. in the total minimum wage packet allowed by it will enure to the benefit of the lowest paid female, badli and permanent dailyrated workers also. This principle will remain effective with the modification that these workers will be entitled to the increase of Rs. 23 p.m. substituted by us for the increase of Rs. 12 allowed by the Tribunal. · G Learned counsel appearing for the Company drew our attention to the fact that the revised wages are payable with effect from 13th December, 1962 and, by this time, a period of 5 to 6 years has elapsed, so that the Company will haw to pay arrears of wages for this long period. It was· urged that this would cast a very heavy burden on the Company. We do not think that this H reas?n a~vanced on ~half of tJ_ie Company wil! justify our making a direction that the mcrease m wages should be effe.ctive from some later date. The previous agreement .of 1959 was binding only up to 12th December, 1962 and we think that the Tribunal Ll3 Sup. C.l./68-12 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969) I SC.R. was right in directing that the revised wages must take effect from 13th December, 1962. Even though arrears will have to be paid for about 6 years, it has to be kept in view that, since then, there has been a very considerable rise in the Price Index and the labour has not so far raised a fresh dispute for a furt.'ier revision o( wages over and above the wages fixed by the Tribunal which are being now re-fixed by us. In all these circumstances, we think that the revised wages should take effect from 13th December, I 962. The only other dispute raisl:d in this appeal related to the bonus for the year 1962-63. Initially, the workmen had challenged the decision of the Tribunal with regard to bonus for all the five years from 1959-60 to 1963-64, but, in the course of argumet1ts at the last stage before us, learned counsel for the workme'.1 confined his arguments to the bonus for the year 1962-63 only. 111e main point urged by learned counsel was that, in giving the decision with regard to bonus for this year. the Tribunal com· milted the error of not making calculation of surplus available on the basis of the Full Bench Formula approved by this Court in the case of The Associated Cement Coml'aaies Ltd., D11•arka Cement Works, Dwarka v. Its Workmen and A1101hcr.i'\ The Company is paying profit bonus equivalent to three monih~· basic wage of each workman. The demand made t>y the workmen "as for bonus equivalent to six months' wages, ar.d the argum-ont w:is that, if the Tribunal had worked out the surplus availabk on the correct basis, that surplus would have certainly justified grant of profit bonus at the rate of six months' wages. This argument fails, because it appears to us that the demand, as put forward before the Tribunal for bonus equivalent to six months' wages, was, in fact, never made by the workmen on the basis that the surplus calculated under the Fu!! Bench Formula would justify bonus being granted at that rate. The Tribunal, in this connection, has quoted the pleading of the workmen in their written statement before it. The pleading makes it clear that the claim for six months' wages was not based on the Full Bench Formula, but on the ground that certain clerical staff wa> being paid bonus which, in effect, amounted to about six months' basic wages, because the bonus was calculated in !heir case by taking into account the consolidated wages, including dearness allowance. while in the case of the workmen, the dearness allowance elen1ent of the wages was being ignored and bonus was calculated only by taking into account basic wages. We agree v.ith this interpreta11011 ot' the pleadings of the workmen. Further. there is one very significant circumstance. viz., that this dispute was raised by the workmen before the expiry of the year 1962-61. Initially. there was an attempt that the dispute be referred to the Industrial --·- - -- - - ----- (1) [19l9] S.CR. 91'. A B c D E F G H A B c D F G H ' WORKMEN v. ORIENT PAPER MILLS (Bhargava, J.) 677 Tribunal under s. 10 ( 2) of the Act on the basis of an agreed enumeration of subjects of dispute drawn up by the workmen and the Company together. That reference under s. 10 ( 2) of the Act, however, failed due to some technical defect The reference was ultimately made by the Govemmen! un