# Al. J\'ftr"J'tlnan ,f\·(1111bf11r v. Statr '!l J(aalrr

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 736
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. DAS GuPTA, J. C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/al-j-ftr-j-tlnan-f-1111bf11r-v-statr-l-j-aalrr-2800
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

In<!ustrial Dispute-II' age scales-0/assijical ion.
The appellant contended that though the wage scales
were fixed in 1949, as in 1957, the question of revi•ion of
wage scales had hc•n brought hefore another Tribunal which
rcfuse<l 1evision except in the case of Maz<loors I 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 Tribum1)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
737
had itself made some obvious mistakes which were later cor·
m:ted, 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
th}• question . to the appellant as it would lead to further
disputes.
Htld, 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 had relied. Though in some cases higher scales had been
given to the workmen, the wage scales fixed by the Tribunal
were justified.
Hekl, further, that though there we1e some alips in matterl
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.
Hekl, also, that classification is of two kinds (1) classifica·
tion of jobs and (2) fitting of existing staff' into the various
classified jobs. The first classification is a matter for the Tri·
bunal whereas the second kind generally speaking may appropriately be left to the employer to be done 1n consultation with
the Union, and it is only a disputed case which may be referred,
it necessary, to the Tribunal.
Nootx Dru Okanera v. Ju Workmen, [1962) I L.L.J. 27'1
and French Motor Oar Oo. Ltd. v. Worbnm, [1963) Supp.
2 S.C.R. 16, refrrrtd 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.
CTVIL APPELLATE juRISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 528 of 1962.
·
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
March IO, 1962, of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, in Reference No. (IT) 114 of 1961.
M. 0. Set,alvad, Attorney-General of India, Purushottam Trfoumdaa, J.B. Dadachanji, O~O. Mathur
a~d Ravindet N c1rain1 for the appellant.
1962
1111 l•m•• Oxy1t•
Limited
••
Wo1kmen
1962
The Indian Oxyien
Limilerl
v.
i1'o·kmrn
Wanchoo, J,
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
0. L. Dudhia Yatik Rehman and K. L. llathi,
for respondents Nos. l and 2.
1962. December 6. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
WANcHoo, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave from the award of the Industrial Tribunal,
Maharashtra in a dispute between the appellantcompany 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, (iJ w<.ge scales and (ii) classfication.
The appellant contends that the tribunal made a
mistak<! when it held that wage-scales required reco sideration, particularly as this matter had been consi1
dered by another tribunal in 1957 and that tribunal
had decided to keep the previously existing scales
which were in force since 1949 e

## Text

1962
Al. J\'ftr"J'tlnan
,f\·(1111bf11r
v.
Statr '!l J(aalrr
Subba Ran, J.
1962
Dernnbtr, G.
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l963]SUPP.
this finding and request the High f'..ourt to submit
a revised finding' on the said question within two
months from tbe receipt of the record. The respondent may file a further statement if I e so chooses
to explain or even to correct the valuation list already filed by it. Thereafter an opportunity will
be given tq the appellant to file his objections. The
objections filed by the appellant in this Court may
be also considered by the High Court. The High
Court will s,1bmit the finding. on the evidence
already on record including the said
objections
and
statements.
The
parties
may
file objections to the finding within two weeks from the
date the said finding is received.
The appeal will
be posted a.~ early as possible after obj~cti, 'llS are
filed or after the expiry of the time given for filing
the objections.
011se rem-itted for suhrnission of fresl1 finding.
THE INDIAN OXYGEN LIMITED
v.
WORKMEN A~D OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GuPTA and
J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
In<!ustrial Dispute-II' age scales-0/assijical ion.
The appellant contended that though the wage scales
were fixed in 1949, as in 1957, the question of revi•ion of
wage scales had hc•n brought hefore another Tribunal which
rcfuse<l 1evision except in the case of Maz<loors I 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 Tribum1)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
737
had itself made some obvious mistakes which were later cor·
m:ted, 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
th}• question . to the appellant as it would lead to further
disputes.
Htld, 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 had relied. Though in some cases higher scales had been
given to the workmen, the wage scales fixed by the Tribunal
were justified.
Hekl, further, that though there we1e some alips in matterl
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.
Hekl, also, that classification is of two kinds (1) classifica·
tion of jobs and (2) fitting of existing staff' into the various
classified jobs. The first classification is a matter for the Tri·
bunal whereas the second kind generally speaking may appropriately be left to the employer to be done 1n consultation with
the Union, and it is only a disputed case which may be referred,
it necessary, to the Tribunal.
Nootx Dru Okanera v. Ju Workmen, [1962) I L.L.J. 27'1
and French Motor Oar Oo. Ltd. v. Worbnm, [1963) Supp.
2 S.C.R. 16, refrrrtd 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.
CTVIL APPELLATE juRISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 528 of 1962.
·
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
March IO, 1962, of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, in Reference No. (IT) 114 of 1961.
M. 0. Set,alvad, Attorney-General of India, Purushottam Trfoumdaa, J.B. Dadachanji, O~O. Mathur
a~d Ravindet N c1rain1 for the appellant.
1962
1111 l•m•• Oxy1t•
Limited
••
Wo1kmen
1962
The Indian Oxyien
Limilerl
v.
i1'o·kmrn
Wanchoo, J,
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
0. L. Dudhia Yatik Rehman and K. L. llathi,
for respondents Nos. l and 2.
1962. December 6. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
WANcHoo, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave from the award of the Industrial Tribunal,
Maharashtra in a dispute between the appellantcompany 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, (iJ w<.ge scales and (ii) classfication.
The appellant contends that the tribunal made a
mistak<! when it held that wage-scales required reco sideration, particularly as this matter had been consi1
dered 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
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 wagescales 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 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 out 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 incl:case 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
1962
The Indian Oxyien
Limited
v.
Workmen
ivanclsoo, I.
1962
1 ltt Indian Otygt•
L;mited
••
fVorkmen
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
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 pros·
perous 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 19.J.9 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
comparisoD. made in these charts is not very hel pfo l
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 th: appellant-company still main·
tains a lead in the matter of total wage packet as
against the comparable concerns in the same way
1
2 s.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 comparab!e, 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 it~ 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-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
appellant-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 eogineermg firms which the
appellant itself relied on except one concern which
WdS considered by the tribunal to be too small. It
aeems to us therefore that for the purpose of comparison the tribunal rightly took into account practically
1962
Tiu lnd•an V:i.Jten
Limited
•-
14'orkmtn
IVan:Aoo, J,
1962
Tlr1 /11dian Oxyge11
Limited
v.
l·Vorkmen
fYanchoo, J,
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
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 they are not quite as
near the appellant-company
as the
engineering
concerns which the appe!lant-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 appellan,t'-companyapparently in view of the fact that the appellantcompany was
always a leading employer in the
"'latter of wage-scales.
We are therefore of opinion
,11at 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 tribunal's award, and it is uqed 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 a 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 Mndoor L That mistake
was also corrected by the tribunal.
One more mistake has been pointed out to m with respect to masons.
In the case ?f masons, the grade demanded was
i S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
743
60-5-110-7!·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 triqunal is more than the minimum
demanded by the workmen.
It seems to us that this
is due to a slip and the Jearned counsel ior the res·
pondents conceded that . the starting pay should ~e
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 however docs 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 appear~ 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 arc 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
n;iake the classification. after consulting the unions in.
an advisory capacity. Reliance in this connection
is placed on a decision of ·this Court in N ove;r; Dry
Cleaners v. 118 Workmen('). In that case also 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 the management and the workmen should be
dealt with by tribunals themselves and the case
relied on by the appellant is more of this nlture,
though it also invoked the question of fitting each
(ll [1962J I LL. J. 271, .
196t
Tlr1 lndi.1n O:<:vgen
Luni.ttd
v.
lV01km1n
TV011dzoo, /.
1962
Tlrt lt1dion O.gftn
Limited
v.
Workmen
fVanchoo, J.
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
workman 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 t\) 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('), 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 alrt>ady
exist in this company and about which there is no
dispute. In the circumstances, the tribunal's direction
in the present case with refereuce to the second type
of classification does not suffer from any infirmity.
We therefore dismiss the appeal except with
the modification with rcsprct to masons. In the
circumstances we pass no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed except for slight 11wdification.
\I) (J963J Supp. 2 s.c.R. 16.