# KAMANI METALS & ALLOYS LTD v. THEIR WORKMEN

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 463
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-01-24
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, S. M. Sikri, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kamani-metals-alloys-ltd-v-their-workmen-3993
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Criteria for revision of wages and dearnes.• a//owance-W hat ar~ comparable cone.ems-Departure from
point to
point
odjrutment when permissible-Award-Interference by Suprem• Court in
ap1>6al-RAtrospective opera1ion of award-L•galll)I of-Refertnct !D the
Tribunal, with resptct to sptcial categories of empioye•s-Wl1en Trib111llll
can fix new scales for all employees.
1be award of the Industrial Tribunal in an industrial dispute between
Ille appellanto(lOmpany (manufacturing products of non-ferrous
metals
and .alloys) and its workmen, was challenged in appeal to this Court on
the following grounds:-
( 1) There was no change of circumotances justifying a revision of
the wages, pay scales and deameso allowance, (2) while making auch
revision by it. award, many of the matters stated in the judgment of
this Court in Novex Dry Cleaners v. Its Workmen, [1962] I LLJ. 271
(S.C.) were not considered by the Tribunal; (3) the Tribunal had compared dissimilar concerns and not compared similar ones; ( 4) the Tribunal
took into account an irrelevant factor, namely, the yield from incentive
bonus; ( 5) no case was made out for adjustment of the workmen in the
new time'8cale after grantin!f them one additional Increment after every
3 years service and two add11ional increments, after 5 years' service (6)
the Tribunal was in error in making the award retrospective from !st
October 1962, when the reference was made to it only on 14th December
1962; (7) the Tribunal had gone beyond the reference inasmuch as the
reference was in respect of special categories of monthly-rated employees
by designation, whereas the Tribunal had fixed the new scales of pay
aot only for those workmen but for all clerical and other workmen who
were classified as Grades A, B, C, and D; ·and ( 8) the linking of dearness
allowance, after the consumer price index 321, to wages, has made a departure froin the fixation of dearness allowance fixed in another concern,
where the percentage was that of the dearness allowance and not of the
basic salary.
HELD : Io. an ar,peal brought by special leave against the award,
before a party can c aim redress, it must lie shown ·that the award was
defective by reason of an exoess of jurisdiction, or of a substantial error
iil applying the law or some settled principle, or of some groso and palp·
able error occasioning •ubstantial in1ustice. [471 A.CJ
( 1) There- was no revision of wages or dearness allowance in the
appeDant-<:0mpany during the last 20 years even though commodity prices
had soared high, the general level of wages had gone up, and there had
been two or three revisions already in some industries, while in some
othm, Wage Boatds have been appointed IX> revise or fix wages. Therefore, the demand of the workmen for a revision was justified. [466 F·H]
(2) In order to make the fair wage meet the increase in the cost of
living dearness allowance is paid to make up the disparity to a certain
ex.tent. When, In course of time, it is found that it is not sufficient, because ·
of a further increase in the cost of living, a revision of wages and dearness
~owance becomes necessary.
This Court in its decisions has merely
laid down the priru:ipal
0 guide-lines to be followed in industrial adjudica-
464
SUPllBME COUIT llBPOllTS
(1967) 2 S.C.R.
tion.
·rhc v;1r1ou~
ub~Cr't':lliun.i are not intended to
operate wilh the
A
rigidity of a statutory enactment. Each case must be considered on its
own tacts and only relevant circumstancec; should enter into the determi·
nalion or the wage ~tructurc. The fu.1damen1al principles to be considered
are: (•) how the wages of the worker.. concerned compare with .those
pai<l. to work\!r.i of similar grade and skill hy other employers. in similar
or olhcr industries in rhe region, and (b) what wages rhe establishment or
industry can atfrrd to pay.
Jn the present case, taking into account the
B
increase in its net profits and the fact that the burden of the increosed
wage bill would not be mor

## Text

•
B
c
D
r
G
H
KAMANI METALS & ALLOYS LTD.
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
January 24, 1967
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIKRI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Industrial Dispute-Criteria for revision of wages and dearnes.• a//owance-W hat ar~ comparable cone.ems-Departure from
point to
point
odjrutment when permissible-Award-Interference by Suprem• Court in
ap1>6al-RAtrospective opera1ion of award-L•galll)I of-Refertnct !D the
Tribunal, with resptct to sptcial categories of empioye•s-Wl1en Trib111llll
can fix new scales for all employees.
1be award of the Industrial Tribunal in an industrial dispute between
Ille appellanto(lOmpany (manufacturing products of non-ferrous
metals
and .alloys) and its workmen, was challenged in appeal to this Court on
the following grounds:-
( 1) There was no change of circumotances justifying a revision of
the wages, pay scales and deameso allowance, (2) while making auch
revision by it. award, many of the matters stated in the judgment of
this Court in Novex Dry Cleaners v. Its Workmen, [1962] I LLJ. 271
(S.C.) were not considered by the Tribunal; (3) the Tribunal had compared dissimilar concerns and not compared similar ones; ( 4) the Tribunal
took into account an irrelevant factor, namely, the yield from incentive
bonus; ( 5) no case was made out for adjustment of the workmen in the
new time'8cale after grantin!f them one additional Increment after every
3 years service and two add11ional increments, after 5 years' service (6)
the Tribunal was in error in making the award retrospective from !st
October 1962, when the reference was made to it only on 14th December
1962; (7) the Tribunal had gone beyond the reference inasmuch as the
reference was in respect of special categories of monthly-rated employees
by designation, whereas the Tribunal had fixed the new scales of pay
aot only for those workmen but for all clerical and other workmen who
were classified as Grades A, B, C, and D; ·and ( 8) the linking of dearness
allowance, after the consumer price index 321, to wages, has made a departure froin the fixation of dearness allowance fixed in another concern,
where the percentage was that of the dearness allowance and not of the
basic salary.
HELD : Io. an ar,peal brought by special leave against the award,
before a party can c aim redress, it must lie shown ·that the award was
defective by reason of an exoess of jurisdiction, or of a substantial error
iil applying the law or some settled principle, or of some groso and palp·
able error occasioning •ubstantial in1ustice. [471 A.CJ
( 1) There- was no revision of wages or dearness allowance in the
appeDant-<:0mpany during the last 20 years even though commodity prices
had soared high, the general level of wages had gone up, and there had
been two or three revisions already in some industries, while in some
othm, Wage Boatds have been appointed IX> revise or fix wages. Therefore, the demand of the workmen for a revision was justified. [466 F·H]
(2) In order to make the fair wage meet the increase in the cost of
living dearness allowance is paid to make up the disparity to a certain
ex.tent. When, In course of time, it is found that it is not sufficient, because ·
of a further increase in the cost of living, a revision of wages and dearness
~owance becomes necessary.
This Court in its decisions has merely
laid down the priru:ipal
0 guide-lines to be followed in industrial adjudica-
464
SUPllBME COUIT llBPOllTS
(1967) 2 S.C.R.
tion.
·rhc v;1r1ou~
ub~Cr't':lliun.i are not intended to
operate wilh the
A
rigidity of a statutory enactment. Each case must be considered on its
own tacts and only relevant circumstancec; should enter into the determi·
nalion or the wage ~tructurc. The fu.1damen1al principles to be considered
are: (•) how the wages of the worker.. concerned compare with .those
pai<l. to work\!r.i of similar grade and skill hy other employers. in similar
or olhcr industries in rhe region, and (b) what wages rhe establishment or
industry can atfrrd to pay.
Jn the present case, taking into account the
B
increase in its net profits and the fact that the burden of the increosed
wage bill would not be more than 1/ 10th of the net profits, the Tribunal
was rigltt. in holding that the appellant had the capacity to pay the incrca<Cd
wage bill. [467 B-C, H; 468 A-B, G-H; 469 A-DJ
,
( 3) The Tribunal :om pared the appellant<ompany with four enitineenng concerns. One of them belonged to the same group of industriea
as the appellant. There were common awards in respect of both of them.
Further, there was an award given at the same time by the same Tribunal
C
in the connected concern also, the charter of demands being the same as
in tile appellant-<:ompany and based on several common exhibits. SiDCe
the number of industries in the region wa, small. it was open to the Tri·
bunal to take into consideration the conditions existing in the engineering
concerm in the region, particularly those in a concern where there is
.affinity, even though the appellant-<:ompany could not be described as a
:general engineering industry.
Smaller concerns. where the scale of pay
is considerably lower, do not furnish a just hasis for compar:son. (470
D
A. B, D. F-OJ
Greaves Collon & Co. v. The Workmen, [ i 964J 5 S.C.R. 362, followed.
( 4) The Tribun;1) fbtcd lower wa~es in the rcrerence relating to lhe
~onnected concern. because, a substantial sum was earned in that establishment by way of incentive bonus.
But in the case of the appellcint<om·
pany. finding the yielJ from incentive bonus, low, the Tribunal fixed the
wages at the proper level without considering the yield from incentive
bonus, that is, without being influenced by it in any way. [471 E, G·H;
472 A.BJ
I
(5) In the present case the fixation of scales of pay has been very
-..:autious, the starting wage and the annual increment were not high ... and
therefore. it cannot he said that the Tribunal was in error in departing
from point-to-point adjustment in granting increments ba~cd on the length
F
of service. [472 G-HJ
Observation:< in Hindus/an Times v. Their Workmen, (1964] I S.C.R.
234 at p. 249, followed.
(6) In view of the facts that the workmen demanded retrospective
revision from !st July 1961, and that the matter was referred to the Conciliation Board in September 1962, the choice of !st October 1962 by the
Tribu"31 cannot be characterised as either illegal or unfair. [473 Cl
G
(7) The monthly-paid employees mentioned by name in the order of
reference belong to one category or another in the Grades A to O. The
intention was lo have a general revisio:i of the scale of p_ayment to all
workers paid month!)'; otherwise, it would have been invidious far some
persons in the same Grade to receive more pay than others. The Tribunal
was therefore right in treating the reference as
referring to all
the four
Grades and not reading it as restricted only to a fe"' classes. [473 F-H]
(8) There have been a number of awards in which dearness allowH
ance was fixed in the same manner as by the present award. The. award
in the connected concern coJ1d not be used a.~ a precedent .. because of
the special facts obtaining in that concern. [475 C, E]
-
-
KAMAN! METALS v. WORKMEN (Hidayatul/a/1, J.)
465
A
Clv1L APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 634 of
1965.
Appeal by special leave from the Award (Part II) dated April .
23. 196-l of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay in
Reference (IT) No. 271 of 1962.
B
El. R. Gokhale and /. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
c
D
E
F
G
H
K. K .. Singhvi, R. S. Kulkarni, S. C. Aganmla and
D. P.
Singh, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullait, J. This is an appeal against the Award. Aprii
23, 1964, of the Maharashtra Industrial Tribunal, Bombay (Mr.
Meher) in reference (IT) 271 of 1962. The Award was given in
a dispute between the Kamani Employees Union, Bombay ·and
the Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd. The Company is the appellant
before us. The reference was occasioned by a demand raised by
the Union on February 25, 1960 in relation to wage scales and
classifications, dearness allowance, production bonus, permanency
for daily-rated workmen and grades and scales of pay, dearness
allowance and abolition of marriage-clause for monthly paid
employees. At first a reference was made to a Conciliation Board
by the Government on September 8, 1962. The conciliation was
frustrated for some reasons and on December.14, 1962, the Bombay
Government acting under s. IO(I)(d) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication.
By the Award now under appeal, some points were decided in
favour of the Company and some others in favour of the workmen. The workmen have not appealed and the Company. has
also confined this appeal to some of the points decided against it.
We are concerned with a Company which is carrying on the
business of melting and manufacturing all kinds of rolled products
of non-ferrous metals and alloys, copper and copper-based alloys,
such as sheets, strips, coils etc. According to the Company the
process of manufacture, unlike the general engineering industry,
involves only the melting of the non-ferrous metals and casting them
into suitable slabs for the subsequent processes of hot and cold
rolling to alter their shape, size and metallurgical properties. The
product so wrought serves as a base raw material for making products such as automobiles, telephones, radios and other electrical
gadgets, etc. The Company claims that it cannot be described
as a general engineering industry.
The main contentions in this appeal concern the revision of
wages and monthly pays and the fixing of wage scales and time
scales in respect ther~f. respectively, and the increase in dearness
allowance by adopting a new system of calculation. The Company
466
SUPIUUR OOUl.T UP<>aTI
(1967) 2 S.C.R.
also complains that the Award has been given retrospective operation entailing heavy burden upon it.
In support of the above contentions the Company states that its financial capacity does not
bear the revision either of the wages and pays on the one hand or
the dearness allowance on the other. It submits that the Tribunal
in revising the wages, pays and the dearness allowance has followed wrong principles and ignored those laid down by this Court.
Much of the argument in respect of wages to daily rated workmen
and pays to monthly-rated workmen is common and it will not be
necessary to refer to the argument twice over in the course of this
judgment.
This is the first revision of wages and the dearness allowance
in this Company during the last 20 years. The wage scales and
the dearness allowance were fixed unilaterally to start with. The
minimum basic wage was fixed at Rs. 30 per month or Rs. 1 · 16
per day which was the minimum settled by the Bombay Teittile
Standardization Award and the First Central Pay Commission
for Government servants in or about 1950. The Tribunal has
raised the minimum wage to Rs. l · 35 per day, which is equivalent
to a wage of Rs. 35 per month. The maxima have also been
raised proportionately. Similarly, in the case of monthly rated
workmen the minimW'I monthly salary, which was Rs. 60 for
the lowest grade clerk, has been raised to Rs. 85/- and the maxi.mum
has been increased in almost the same proportion. The Company
contends that this increase is based upc !! wrong principles inasmuch as the wages and pays in this company have been compared
not only with the companies operating non-ferrous metals in the
same way but with general engineering concerns and has taken an
irrelevant factor, namely, the yield from incentive bonus into consideration, has made wrong grades and unnecessary adjustment
in making fitments without taking into account the financial burden
thus involved and the capacity of the Company to bear it.
We
shall consider these submissions.
In dealing with these contentions we shall begin by considering
one contention which, if accepted, will cut at the very root of the
case for revision of wages. It has, however, no merit. The submission is that there is no change of circumstances justifying a
rc'fision of wages and pay scales or dearness allowance. It can
hardly be maintained that wages fixed so far back do not need
revision, when, as every one knows, commodity prices have soared
high, the general level of wages has gone up and in some industries
there have been two or three revisions already and in some others
Wage Boards have been appointed to revise or fix wages. We can
take judicial notice of these facts.
In this Company no revision
has taken place and the demand is, therefore, not unjustified.
Before we deal with the other contentipns it is necessary to
make a few preliminary observations about the principles which
A
B
c
D
-
E
F
G -
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
KAMANI MBTALS v. WORKMEN (Hidayatullah, /,)
467
are to be followed. Jn questions of this type it is first desirable to
consider what amount is necessary to maintain and even improve
the workers' standard of living, how wages of the workers con·
cerned compare with those paid to workers of similar grade and
skill by other employers in similar or other industries in the region
and what wages the establishment or industry can afford to pay.
These are the fundamental principles which have to be borne in
mind. The first, however, is a general inquiry into the structure
of wages which it may not be necessary to examine elaborately
each time because that inquiry is generally made independently of
individual cases. The data is usually compiled by labour conferences and experts. The other two matters, of course, r,equire
attention.
Fixation of a wage-structure is always a delicate task because
a balance has to be struck between the demands of social justice
which requires that the workmen should receive their proper share
of the national income which they help to produce with a view to
improving their standard of living, and the depletion which every
increase in wages makes in the profits as this tends to divert capital
from industry into other channels thought to be more profitable.
The task is not rendered any the easier because conditions vary
from region to region, industry to industry and establishment toestablishment. To cope with these differences certain principles
on which wages are fixed have been stated from time to time by
this 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 establishment 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 workman 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 minimumwage,
which must be paid in any event, and the living wage, which is
the goal. As time passes and prices rise, even the fair wage fixed
for the time being tends to sag downwards and then a revision is
necessary. To a certain extent ihe disparity is made up by the
additional payment of dearness allowance. This allowance is
given to compensate for the rise in the cost of living. But as it is
466
SUPalM! couar alPORTS
[1967] 2 S.C.R.
not advisable to have a 100% neutralisation lest it lead to inflation.
the dearness allowance is often a little less than 100% neutralisation. In course of time even the addition of the dearness allowance
doe; not sufficiently make up the gap between wages and cost
of living and a revision of wages and/or dearness allowance then
becomes necessary. This revision is done on certain principles.
ThL-se principles have been stated in more than one case of
this Court. The Company, however, relies upon Norex Dry Cleaners v. Its Workmen('). The principle; laid down in that case
have been accurately summarized in the head-note thus :
" .... But in fixing a fair wage. the capacity of the
industry to bear the burden of the said wage scale is a very
relevant and very important factor.
Before comparing the
establishment in question with other establishments engaged
in the same trade in the region, it would be obviously
necessary for the industrial tribunal to compare
the
establishments in respect of their standing, the extent of
the labour force employed by them. the extent of their
respective customers and what is more important. a comparative study should be made of the profits and losses
incurred by them for some years before the date of the
award. It is well known that ih fixing the wage structure
on a fair basis ; an attempt is generally made in assessing
the additional liability imposed on the employer by the
new wage structure and tn"ing to anticipate whether
the employer would be able to meet it for a reasonably
long period in future.
Where the award simply fixed the wage scales on
the assumption that the establishment in question was
comparable to the other two establishments in the same
region without considering the aspects mentioned above,
it must be set aside.
In the consequence, the industrial
tribunal was directed to reconsider the question, of fixation
of wage scales in the light of the principles mentioned
supra.
..
The Company contends that many of the matters here stated have
not been considered and the Award being defective for that reason
deserves to be set aside. This is not a proper approach. The
observations no doubt lay down the principal guide-lines but they
are not intended to operate with the rigidity of a statutory enactment. The Court has indicated what lines of inquiry are likely
to lead to the discovery of correct data for the fixation of fair wages
in the sense explained above. In this task all the relevant considerations must enter but fruitless inquiries into matters of no parti-
<ll (1962) I L.L.J. 271.
A
B
c
D
E.
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
'
G
H
XAMANl METALS v. WORKMEN (Hidayatu//a/1, J.)
469
cular importance to a case are hardly to be insisted upon because
rather than prove of assistance, they might well frustrate the very
object in view. Each case requires to be considered on its own
facts.
In the case before us, all relevant circumstances have. in
our opinion, entered the determination. and it has not been shown
to us that any other circumstance could or should have been considered. In fact the argument was that the tribunal considered
some irrelevant things and this has vitiated the finding. We shall
now consider the specific objections.
The Company has a capital of Rs. 40,00,000. Its sales in
1957-58to1961-62 increased from Rs. 1,81,18,873 to Rs. 2,31,50.485
and its profits in 1962-63 were of the order of Rs. 28 lakhs, excluding Rs. St lakhs for depreciation and Rs. 2 lakhs for managing
agency commission. The burden of the increased wage bill will
not be more than l / l 0th of its net profits, to say nothing of some
other savings by way of reduction of income-tax. The tribunal
held that the burden could be borne and we agree. One part of
the inquiry, namely, the capacity to pay the increased wage bill
was satisfied.
The next part of the inquiry involved the application of the
principle of industry-cum-region. This principle is that fixation
or revision of scales of wages, pays or dearness allowance must
not be out of tune with the wages etc. prevalent in the industry
or the region. This is always desirable so that unfair competition
may not result between an establishment and another and diversity
in wages in the region may not lead to industrial unrest.
In
attempting to compare one unit with another care must be taken
that units differently placed or circumstanced are not considered
as guides, without making adequate. allowance for the differences.
The same is true when the regional level of wages are considered
and compared. In general words, comparable units may be compared but not units which are dissimilar. While disparity in wages
in industrial concerns similarly placed leads to discontent, attempting to level up wages without making sufficient allowances for
differences, leads to hardships.
It is complained that the Tribunal, has done exactly the opposite. namely, that it bas compared dissimilar concerns and not
compared similar ones. What the Tribunal has done is to compare the Kamani Metals & Alloys (appellant Company) with the
Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. and the Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. The appellant Company does not object to
the first but to the second as it deals with non-ferrous metals and
alloys and does not require engineering process in its manufacture.
For the same reason a comparison with Alcock Ashdown and
Co. and Richardson and Cruddas & Co. is objected to. On the·
other hand, it is submitted that another company Devidayal Metals
Industries Ltd., Bombay was a comparable concern.
470
SUPUMI OOtllT UPOaTI
( 1967] 2 S.C.Jl.
Both sides agree that a comparison with the Indian Smelting
and Refining Co. Ltd. was proper. As regards Devidayal it is
clear from the records that it is a much smaller concern and does
not furnish a just basis for comparison. The scales of pay existing
in it are considerably lower than the existing scales in many
instances. As regards Kamani Engineering Corporation it is necessary to consider a few facts. In 1951 a common award was given
in respect of Kamani Engineering Corporation and the Kamaru
Metals· and Alloys. In 1958 the demand for revision of dearness
allowance was rejected by a common award. This time too the
charter of demands in respect of the Kamani Engineering and
Kamani Metals & Alloys was the same and given within a few
days of each other. These references were first pending befor~
Mr. T. Bilgrani but as he had 551 references pending before him five
references in respect of the Kamani group of industries were withdrawn from him and made over to Mr. Meher. The references
were heard together. The award in the Kamani Engineering was
rendered on 27th February, 1964 and that in Kamaru Metals &
Alloys on 23rd April, 1964. Many of the exhibits were common
and the two awards refer to these common exhibits. In these
circumstances, the comparison was not inadmissible. The principle
of fixation of wages and dearness allowance was stated by this
Court in these words :
" .... The principle therefore which emerges from
these t.wo decisions is that in applying the industry-cwn·
region formula for fixing wage-scales the tribunal should
lay stress on the industry part of the formula if there are
a large number of concerns in the same region carrying
on the same industry ; in such a case in order that production cost may not be unequal and there may be equal
competition wages should generally be fixed on the basis
of the comparable industries, namely, industries of the same
kind. But where the number of industries of the same
kind in a particular region is small, it is the regioll part
of the industry-cum-region
formula
which ·assumes
.
"(')
unportance. . . . . . . .
.
In dealing, therefore, with only one comparable concern it \'{as
open to take into consideration the conditions existing in engineering concerns, particularly those in Kamani Engineering Corporation, which belongs to the same group and there is thus affinity
between them.
We were taken through the comparative charts i;howing the
scales of wages in these cbncerns and pointed out the differences
particularly those operating to the disadvantage of the appellant
Company. That some differences are bound to be there because
(I) Greaves Collon It Co. v. Their Workmcu (1964) S S.C,R. 362: [1964j I LL).
344, 346.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
KAMANI METALS v. WOR,KMEN (Hidaystul/ah, J.)
471
of many imponderables that go into the fixation of wages, goes
without saying. We are, of course, not expected to go into the
matter over again in the appeal. An appeal against an award
brought by special leave is not an appeal as of right.
It is not
intended to be an appeal on every ground of fact and of law unless
this Court considers it fit to examine the matter from any special
angle. Before a party can claim redress, it must show that the
award is defective by reason of an excess of jurisdiction or of a
substantial error in applying the Jaw .or some settled principle or
of some gross and palpable error occasioning substantial injustice.
An industrial adjudication by reason that it is an award cannot
be assailed because some other person would have given a different
award or that elaborate reasons have not ·been given.
We have
considered the comparative charts carefully and on the whole,
we are satisfied . that the scales of wages as fixed by this Award
when compared with those existing in Indian Smelting, when they
are high, are not so high as to merit special comment or interference.
Sometimes they are lower. It remains, however, to consider the
case from the angle of the scales of wages existing in Kamani
Engineering Corporation.
In dealing with the scales of pay in comparison with those
existing in Kamani Engineering Corporation the Tribunal observed
that higher wages were being fixed in the Kamani Metals & Alloys
because the yield from incentive bonus in the Kamani Engineering
Corpor.ation was between 20 to 30 % of the wages and the dearness
allowance whereas in this Company it was abnormally low.
Mr. Gokhale contended that the yield from incentive bonus is an
irrelevant factor to take into account and observed that if persons
could get higher wages by not earning incentive bonus, the result
might be a disincentive to work at all. Speaking generally, his
objection is right to a certain extent. But it is not right in the
circumstances of this case. The Company has since 1949 introduced a scheme of wage incentive. There is no straight piecerate system under which the worker is paid a fixed amount for
each unit of out-put. There is .a fixation of average production
for a whole group and not for the individual worker. The target
in the melting section is fixed at 5000 cwt. and J ·5 % on every
G .additional 300 cwt. is fixed as bonus. Other sections have different
targets and different percentages. A similar scheme also exists
in the Kamani Engineering Corporation. What has happened
is that the Tribunal in fixing scales of wages in the reference from
Kamani Engineering fixed lower rates because it was of the opinion
that quite a substantial sum was earned in that establishment by
H
way of incentive bonus. When the Tribunal came to decide the
present reference it recalled that lower wages were fixed in the
Kamani Engineering Corporation case because of the yield frem
ncentive bonus. It, therefore, ascertained the yield in the Kaman i
472
SUPJ.BMI! COU.T llBPOllTS
[1967) 2 S.C.R.
Metals & Alloys and finding it low fixed the wages at the proper
level unaffected by consideration of incentive bonus. This really
means that proper wages were fixed in the Kamani Metals & Alloys
without being infiuenced in any way by the yield from incentive
bonus although in the case of Kamani Engineering Corporation
lower wages were fixed because the yield from incentive bonus
was very high. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the wages in the present case have not really been infiuenced by
considerations of yield from incentive bonus whatever may be
said of Kamani Engineering Corporation.
It was next contended that there is no c•1se made out for ad·
justment of the workmen in the new.time scale after grnnting them
one additional increment after every three years' service and two
additional increments after five years' service. The principle on
which a point-to-point adjustment is sometimes departed from
and increments are granted was stated in some cases of this Court.
It is sufficient to refer to only one of them. In Hindus.an Times,
Lid. r. Their Workme11( '), the question of adjustment of existing
employees into new scales was considered.
It was observed as
follow~ :
·
•· .... It may well be true that in the absence of any
special circumstances an adjustment of the nature as allowed
in this case by allowing special increment in the new scale
on the basis of service already rendered may not be
appropriate. Clearly, however, in the present case the
tribunal took into consideration in deciding this question
of adjustment the fact that it had been
extremely
cautious
as
regards
increasing
the
old
wagescales. Apparently, it thought that it would be fair to
give some relief to the existing employees by means of
such increase by way of adjustment while at the same
time not burdening the employer with higher rates of
wages for new incumbents.
In these circumstances,
we do not see any justification for interfering with the
directions given by the tribunal in the matter of adjustments."
In this case also the fixation of scales has been very cautious. The
increase from Rs. 1·16 to Rs. 1·35 in th~ lowest category is not
very high considering that these wages had existed for 12 years
before they were so adjusted. Similarly, the starting wage in all
the other three categories cannot be considered to be very high.
The same is the case with monthly-rated workmen. The annual
increment is not unduly high and in these circumstances it cannot
be said that the Tribunal was in error in departing from a point-topoint adjustment to grant one or two increments based on the
(I) [1964] I S.C.R. 2;4, 249: (1963] I L.L.J. 108 I IS.
B
c
D
..
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
KAMAN! METALS v. WORKMEN (Hidayatu//ah, J.)
473
length of service. The discretion was exercised on sound judicial
Jines.
It was finally contended that the Tribunal was in error in
making the Award retrospective from October I, 1962, when the
reference was made on December 14, 1962
This objection has
no force. In the charter of demands the workmen had claimed
retrospective revision from July I, 1961. The matter was referred
to the Board of Conciliation on September 8, 1962. When conciliation was frustrated because of the arrest of some of the workers
of the Union under the Defence of India Rules, the present reference was made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal could have easily
chosen September 8, 1962 but chose an intermediate date to be fair
to both sides. In our judgment, the choice of October I, 1962
by the Tribunal cannot be characterised as either illegal or unfair.
The question of incentive bonus revision was not mooted before us
and the direction that incentive bonus should be calculated on the
new scale from Isl January, 1964 is more in favour of the employers than the workmen and no grievance can be made about it.
This brings us to the question of the monthly-rated workers.
Most of the points which we have discussed in relation to the dailyrated workmen are common. We have seen the scales which
have been fixed and compared them with the rates obtaining in
Indian Smelting and the Kamani Engineeting and other concerns
and are satisfied that they have not been put so high as to merit
interference at our hands. It is, however, contended that the
Tribunal has gone beyond the Reference inasmuch as the Reference
was in respect of special categories of monthly-rated employees
by designation but the Tribunal has fixed the new scales not only
for those workmen but for all clerical and other workmen which
were classified as Grades A, B, C and D in 1950.
It is true that
the Tribunal has not only fixed the new scales for those categories of
monthly-paid employees who were named in the order of reference but has also provided that those scales shall apply to clerks
in the A, B, C and D Grades. It is, however, clear that even the
monthly-paid employees mentioned by name belong to one category or another in the Grades A to D. It would have been highly
invidious if some persons in the Grades were to receive more pay
than the others in the same Grade. The A ward, therefore, treats
the Reference as referring to the 4 Grades although only some of
the class who go by special designations in each Grade have been
mentioned. The intention, however, was to have a general revision of the scales of payment to all workers paid monthly and the
Tribunal was, therefore, right in not reading the Reference as
restricted to only a few classes. By doing so the Tribunal has
avoided further industrial unrest and disputes and has really given
effect to the underlying object of the reference.
474
SUPUMB COU.T J.BPOJ.n
(1967) 2 S.C.R.
This brings us to the last question which is related to the dearness allowance payable to the monthly-rated workmen. Previous
to the present Award the dearness allowance was payable in this
company in the following manner ;
"On the !st Rs. 100-(upto Rs. 100)
60 per cent
with
a
On the 2nd Rs. 100-(upto Rs. 200)
On the 3rd Rs. 100-(upto Rs. 300)
On the 4th Rs. 100-(upto Rs. 400)
On the 5th Rs. 100-(upto Rs. 500)
On every hundred above Rs. 500-of
basic
minimum
of
the
D.A. paid
to the
Textile Operatives by
the
Bombay
Millowners' Association.
20
per cent of the
2nd hundred rupees.
15 per cent of the 3rd
hundred rupees.
10 per cent of the 4th
hurrdred rupees.
I 0 per cent of the 5th
hundred rupees.
5 per cent of
every
hundred rupees.
The above percentage of dearness allowance is applicable
when the Bombay Cost of Living Index rests between 311 to
320. Variation in the above percentage to be allowed per 10
p.oint movement in the index. First slab-3 per cent of dearness
allowance ; 2nd slab I j per cent of dearness allowance; 3rd
slab 1 per cent of dearness allowance ; 4th slab : per cent of
dearness allowance and the last slab ! per cent
of the
dearness allowance."
In the Award this has been altered to a scheme which is as follows ;
On the first Rs. 100 basic pay (upto
Rs. 100)
60%
On the second Rs. 100 basic pay (upto 35 % of the 2nd 100
Rs. 200)
rupees.
On the third Rs. 100 basic pay ( upto
15 % of the 3rd I()()
Rs. 300)
rupees.
On the Rs. 301 basic and above
10 % of the balance.
NOTE :
The minimum dearness allowance will be the revised
teAtile scale.
The above percentage of dearness allowance is
applicable
when the Bombay Consumer Prit-e
Index is hetween 311 and 320.
Variation per 10
point movement in the index should be as follows ;
A
B
c
D
E
'
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
KAMAN! METALS v. WORKMEN (Hidayatullah, l.)
475
First slab of Rs. 100 basic pay
Second slab of 100 basic pay
Subsequent slabs
5 % (e.g . . dearness allowance will be 65 %
of basic pay
when
index is between 321
and 330).
li%
1 %".
It is contended that linking the dearness allowance, after the consumer price index 321 to wages has made a departure from the
fixation of dearness allowance fixed in the Kamani Engineering
Corporation in which, under the same circumstances, the percentage after the consumer price inc;lex of 321 is that of the dear•
ness allowance and not of the basic salary. On the other side,
we were
shown
a number of awards in which dearness
allowance has been fixed in the same manner as by this Award.
It appears that the case of Kamani Engineering was treated as a
special case because the incentive bonus there was yielding a third
of the total earnings of the workmen and it was considered that
if the dearness allowance was also raised then a very great burden
would be thrown upon the employer by reason of the incentive
bonus. We cannot, therefore, use the precedent of the award in
the Karnani Engineering Corporation because of these special
facts. We are satisfied that in many other companies dearness
allowance has been ordered to be calculated in the same manner
as has been done by this Award and we see no reason, therefore,
to interfere.
For these reasons we find no force in this appeal. It fails and
will be dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismis~d.