# SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] THE BIJAY COTTON MILLS LTD v. THEIR WORKMEN & ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1960] 2 S.C.R. 982
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. c. DAS GUPTA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-reports-1960-2-the-bijay-cotton-mills-ltd-v-their-workmen-another-1814
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Industrial Dispu.te-Minimu.m basic wage fixed by TribunalM odiflcation by Labou.r Appellate Tribunal according to stati/.fory
1
notification isst<cd two years after the award-If valid-Appropriate
Govcmmcnt-Industrial Disputes Act, I947• (I4 of I947),
Indus-
~
trial (Development and Regulations) Act. I95I (65 of I9JI). s. 2(a)(i).
On the refusal of the appellant-employer to fix the minirnnn1 wages and rates for contract work of the \Vorkmen-respondents who alleged that they were paid below the level of bare
subsistance
v..1age, the dispute was referred to the Industrial
Tribunal for
adjudication. The first
Tribunal could
not
fix any minimu1n basic wage and the a\vard of the second
Tribunal which fixed a scale \Vas set aside on the ground
that the appointment of the Tribunal was not published
according to law.
The third Tribunal ultimately fixed the basic
minimun1 \vage on the industry-cum-region basis after considering the rates prevalent in various parts of the country and a
place nearest to the appellant company. The minimum awarded
by the Tribunal was slightly increased by the Labour Appellate
Tribunal in accordance \vi th a statutory notification issued under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), which had come
into force after two years of the award of the Tribunal and by
which a scale of minimum wage and dearness allo\vancc was
fixed.
On appeal by the appellant company by special leave.
Held, that the Labonr Appellate Tribunal committed no error
of la\v in awarding the same minimum basic wage
which '\Vas
statutorily fixed and which came into force only two years after
•.
the award of the Tribunal.
,
In determining the minimum basic wage the fact that a large
~
amount of dearness allo\vance \Vas paid to the employees in other
J A
comparable occupations in the same region should not be ignored.
In order that the Central Government might itself become
the appropriate Government within the meaning of s. 2(a)(i) of
the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, (65 of
1951) it must specify in that behalf that the industry in question
was a controlled industry.
If the services of one Tribunal were not available to the
appropriate ,.Government it vvas
perfectly competent to that
Government to appoint another Tribunal to take up the work of
acljudication.
CIVIL APPELLATE ,JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 355 ofl958.
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated
Ill
December 12, 1956 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal
11111
..
't'
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
983
of India, Bombay in Appeal (Born.) Nos. 77 and 103
.
B. C. Mills Ltd.
A. V. Viswa,natha Sastri,
S. N. Andley, J. B.
of 1956.
v.
Dadachanji and Rcv;neshwar Nath for the appellant.
Their Work»?Pn
B. D. Sharma, for respondent No. I.
1960. February, 12. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJENDR~GADKAR, J.~The industrial dispute bet- Gajendragadkar f.
ween the Bijay Co,tton Mills Ltd., (hereinafter called
the appellant) and their workmen (hereinafter called
the respondents)' which has given rise to this appeal
by special leave has gone through a protracted and
tortuous course. The respondents claimed that the
scale of minimum wages and rates for contract works
should be fixed for them because it was alleged that
the payments made by the appellant were below the
level of the bare subsistance wage. The appellant did
not accede to the demand thus made by the respondents, and so on December 1, 1950, the present dispute
was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribu!
nal consisting of Mr. D. N. Roy, under s. 10(1) read
withs. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act
XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). ·Amongst
the items thus referred for adjudication, the first two
were (1) that the mill employees be paid minimum
wages and rates. for contract works as shown in the
two statements enclosed, and (2) that dearness allowance be paid to all workers at the rate of Rs. 35 per
mensem each and it may be increased or decreased
according to rise or fa

## Text

February 12
•
•
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
THE BIJAY COTTON MILLS LTD.
v.
THEIR WORKMEN & ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Industrial Dispu.te-Minimu.m basic wage fixed by TribunalM odiflcation by Labou.r Appellate Tribunal according to stati/.fory
1
notification isst<cd two years after the award-If valid-Appropriate
Govcmmcnt-Industrial Disputes Act, I947• (I4 of I947),
Indus-
~
trial (Development and Regulations) Act. I95I (65 of I9JI). s. 2(a)(i).
On the refusal of the appellant-employer to fix the minirnnn1 wages and rates for contract work of the \Vorkmen-respondents who alleged that they were paid below the level of bare
subsistance
v..1age, the dispute was referred to the Industrial
Tribunal for
adjudication. The first
Tribunal could
not
fix any minimu1n basic wage and the a\vard of the second
Tribunal which fixed a scale \Vas set aside on the ground
that the appointment of the Tribunal was not published
according to law.
The third Tribunal ultimately fixed the basic
minimun1 \vage on the industry-cum-region basis after considering the rates prevalent in various parts of the country and a
place nearest to the appellant company. The minimum awarded
by the Tribunal was slightly increased by the Labour Appellate
Tribunal in accordance \vi th a statutory notification issued under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), which had come
into force after two years of the award of the Tribunal and by
which a scale of minimum wage and dearness allo\vancc was
fixed.
On appeal by the appellant company by special leave.
Held, that the Labonr Appellate Tribunal committed no error
of la\v in awarding the same minimum basic wage
which '\Vas
statutorily fixed and which came into force only two years after
•.
the award of the Tribunal.
,
In determining the minimum basic wage the fact that a large
~
amount of dearness allo\vance \Vas paid to the employees in other
J A
comparable occupations in the same region should not be ignored.
In order that the Central Government might itself become
the appropriate Government within the meaning of s. 2(a)(i) of
the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, (65 of
1951) it must specify in that behalf that the industry in question
was a controlled industry.
If the services of one Tribunal were not available to the
appropriate ,.Government it vvas
perfectly competent to that
Government to appoint another Tribunal to take up the work of
acljudication.
CIVIL APPELLATE ,JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 355 ofl958.
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated
Ill
December 12, 1956 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal
11111
..
't'
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
983
of India, Bombay in Appeal (Born.) Nos. 77 and 103
.
B. C. Mills Ltd.
A. V. Viswa,natha Sastri,
S. N. Andley, J. B.
of 1956.
v.
Dadachanji and Rcv;neshwar Nath for the appellant.
Their Work»?Pn
B. D. Sharma, for respondent No. I.
1960. February, 12. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJENDR~GADKAR, J.~The industrial dispute bet- Gajendragadkar f.
ween the Bijay Co,tton Mills Ltd., (hereinafter called
the appellant) and their workmen (hereinafter called
the respondents)' which has given rise to this appeal
by special leave has gone through a protracted and
tortuous course. The respondents claimed that the
scale of minimum wages and rates for contract works
should be fixed for them because it was alleged that
the payments made by the appellant were below the
level of the bare subsistance wage. The appellant did
not accede to the demand thus made by the respondents, and so on December 1, 1950, the present dispute
was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribu!
nal consisting of Mr. D. N. Roy, under s. 10(1) read
withs. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act
XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). ·Amongst
the items thus referred for adjudication, the first two
were (1) that the mill employees be paid minimum
wages and rates. for contract works as shown in the
two statements enclosed, and (2) that dearness allowance be paid to all workers at the rate of Rs. 35 per
mensem each and it may be increased or decreased
according to rise or fall in prices. in the present
appeal we are concerned with the minimum wages.
It appears that Mr. Roy found himself unable to
fix any basic minimum wage, and to support his view,
that it would be inexpedient to fix any minimum
basic wage in the proceedings pending before him, he
referred to the fact that the question of fixatiOn of
the basic wage had been rendered enormously difficult
by the state of industrial development in the State of
Ajmer and by the unsteady and frequent fluctuations
in prices. Even so he considered several items of
dispute referred to him and announced his award on
October 5, 1951.
125
I
•
I
•
•
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
z96o
This award was challenged by the respondents before
the Labour Appellate Tribunal.. The appellate tribiinal
B. C. Mills Ltd,
h
d d th
l\'- R
'h
v.
t ereupon reman e
e matter to ill.
oy wit
a
Their workmen direction that the issues as to the0 basic wage and as
.
to dearness allowance should be specifically dekrGajendragadkar J. mined and appropriate directions :issued on thorn
two items. This remand order was passed on October 20, 1952.
By the time the proceedings were taken up before
the tribunal on remand, Mr. Roy was not available
because he had ceased to be a District Judge in Ajmer.
J
•
In his place Mr. Sharma was appointed. Mr. Sharma
then made his award on September 8, 1953. He fixed
Rs. 25 as basic wage {tnd Rs. 10 as minimum dearness
allowance. It appears that the award thus made by
Mr. Sharma was subsequently quashed on the ground
that his appointment had not been duly published as
required by the Act.
This order was passed on
May 25, 1955.
Mr. C. Jacob was then appointed Industrial Tribunal.
"
He made his award on January 25, 1956. By this
award Mr. Jacob in substance agreed with the view
taken by Mr. Sharma and fixed the basic wage at
Rs. 25 per merisem and the minimum dearness allowance at Rs. IO per mensem. This award was directed
to . come into operation as from December 1, 1950.
This award was again challenged before the Labour
Appellate Tribunal and the appellate tribunal has
partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents
and increased the basic wage from Rs. 25 per mensem
?
to Rs. 30 per mensem. The amount of the minimum
dearness allowance has been affirmed at Rs. 10 per
mensem. This decision was announced by the appellate tribunal on December 12, 1956. It is this decision
that has given rise to the present appeal by special
leave.
It is common ground that a; Statutory Committee
was appointed under Minimum Wages Act, 1948
(Act XI of 1948) in respect of Ajmer on January 17,
1952. Its report was submitted on October 4, 1952,
and a notification was issued in pursuance of the said
repmt on Octob(Jr 7, 1952. This notification has
come into force as from January 8, 1953, and in
)
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
985
consequence the basic minimum wage is now statur960
torily fixed at Rs. 30 per mensem and dearness
allowance at Rs. 26 per mensem. Thus it would be B. c. Mills Ltd.
clear that there is no dispute between t):ie parties as Their ~orkmen
to what would be the basic wage and the minimum
dearness allowance subsequent to January 8, 1953.
Gajendragadkar J.
It appears that Mr. Jacob who fixed the basic
minimum wage at Rs. 25 per mensem relied upon the
fact that the said rate represented the basic minimum
wage on the industry-cum-region basis. He has
observed that the basic minimum wage of an unskilled
worker in the textile mills in Bombay was R.s. 30
per mensem, while at other places it varies from
Rs. 22 to Rs. 30 pel' mem1em. Then he has also
referred to the two charts, Exhibits 4-A and 4-B, produced by the respondents where the minimum basic
wages were shown to range between Rs. 21 to Rs. 30
in Rajasthan. According to him, in Rajasthan minimum basic wages were Rs. 26 per mensem and in
Beawar which is the nearest centre from Bijaynagar
the minimum wages for an unskilled textile worker in
1950 were Rs. 25 per niensem. That is one fact on
which the tribunal relied.
The other fact· on which
reliance was placed w~s that there was an agreement
between the parties in December 1949, under which
the respondents were willing to work on the minimum
wage of Rs. 27. ·In fact it appears that both the
appellant and the i~espondents had moved this Court
for striking down the notification issued by the Ajmer
Government by which the basic wage had been fixed
at Rs. 30 from January 8, 1953. In Bijay Cotton
Mills Ltd. v. The State of Ajmer (1) it was urged on
their behalf jointly that the relevant provisions ofthe
Minimum Wages Act were ultra vires and that it
would be in the interests of the employer and the
employees as well to strike down the impugned
notification. This Court rejected the said contention
and upheld the validity of the Act as well as of the
notification. That, however, is another matter. · The
agreement on which the respondents were prepared
to work for the appellant was pressed into service by
the appellant before the tribunal. The tribunal was
(r) (1955] x S.C.R, 75l,
•
•
•
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
196o
influenced by that fact in finally determining the
amount of basic wage. Two other facts may also have
B. c. ~:us Ltd. weighed. The appellant started its textile business in
Their Workmen 1940 and had to face a serious calamity in 1943, as a
result of which it suffered great loss and incurred
Gajendragadkar J. liability to the tune of nearly rupees thirty lakhs.
•
Besides, it was urged before the tribunal that a large
section of the respondents belonged to the agricultural
class and they can supplement their income from agricultural sources. It is presumably on these grounds
that Mr. Jacob fixed the basic wage at Rs. 25 per
mensem.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal, on the other hand,
has held that, in the absence of satisfactory evidence
on the record, the statutory notification issued under
the Minimum Wages Act affords " the best and safest
guide in the matter of fixation of minimum wage" ..
It has observed that even though the notification can
have no application prior to January 8, 1953, still
" they were of opinion that the scales of wages fixed
thereunder should not· be departed from even for the
period now in question. That was all the more so
because not much useful material was available on the
record to fix the said wage ".. It is on this ground
that the appellate tribunal has increased the basic
wage from Hs. 25 to Rs. 30 as prescribed by the notification. It is this modification that is challenged
before us by Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri on behalf of
the appellant.
...
Mr. Sastri contends that the method adopted by the
-'
tribunal was a scientific method ; it took into account
a )Jasic wage deducible on the industry-cum-region
basis and this should not have been reversed by the
appellate tribunal. It, however, appears that in
ascertaining the wages which labour in comparable
trades was getting in the relevant region, the tribunal
has completely lost sight of the fact that in addition
to the basic wages of Rs. 26/- Rs. 43/-
was the
average minimum dearness allowance paid to the
workers and that made a very large difference in the
total earnings of the workmen. In determining the
minimum basic wa.ge the fact that a large amount of
dearness allowance was being paid to employees in
r
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
987
other comparable occupations in the same region
rc,60
should not have been ignored by the tribunal, and that
is one infirmity on which the appellate tribunal was B. c. ~~lls Ltd.
entitled to comment.
Their Workmen
Besides, if the appellate tribunal thought that more
useful assistance can be derived from the statutory Gajendragadkar ]<
fixation of the minimum wage in Ajmer under the
Minimum Wages Act, we do not see how we Q.an interfere with the said view in the present appeal. It would
not be wrong to assume, as the appellate tribunal did,
that in fixing the minimum wage in the area, the
Statutory Committee took into consideration all the
relevant factors and came to the conclusion that that
would be a fair minimum to prescribe. On the other
hand, before the· tribunal much relevant or useful'
evidence was. not adduced, and so the appellatljl
tribunal could not be said to have committed any error.
of law in preferring to rely on the statutory notification rather than on the other unsatisfactory evidence
produced in the case. After all, from January 8, 1953,
the minimum basic wage was statutorily fixed, and so,
if for a couple of years before that date the same basic
wage was awarded by the appellate tribunal it cannot
be said that any error of law has been committed,
which should be corrected by us in our jurisdiction
under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, we
are not satisfied that any case for interference has
been made out by the appellant on this point.
The next contention raised by Mr. Sastri is that the
appointment of Mr. Jacob who made his award on
January 25, 1956, was invalid, and Mr. Sastri suggests
that the said award as well as the decision of the
appellate tribunal should be set aside and the matter
should be sent back to Mr. Sharma for disposal in
accordance with law. The argument is that Mr.
Sharma's appointment as Industrial Tribunal made on ·
December 31, 1954, was subsisting at the time when
Mr. Jacob was appointed on June 17, 1955, and it is
urged that when the same industrial dispute had
already been referred to Mr. Sharma, it was not competent to the appropriate authority to refer the same
dispute to Mr. Jacob. In support of this argument
reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in The
. ,-
•
•
•
' 988
SUPREME COURT HEPORTS
[1960(2)]
i96o
State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly & Ors (1).
In our
opinion there is no substance in this argument. The
B. C. }1fills Ltd.
"fi
.
h" h h
h ]
f
v.
not1 catwn on w IC
t e w o e o the argument is
Thei,_ Workm.., based was issued on December 31, 1954, for the sole
purpose of correcting the error which had crept into
Gajendragadkar J. the appointment of Mr. Sharma by reason of the fact
that his earlier appointment made on May 4, 1953,
had not been duly published and notified as required
by the Act. Indeed, it was because of this infirmity
that the award made by Mr. Sharma on September 8,
1953, had been quashed on May 25, 1955. In reading
the later notification this fact must be borne in mind.
No doubt the notification purports to refer to Mr.
Sharma for his adjudication the matter referred to
him by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on remand; it,
however, appears as poiuted out by the appellate
'
' ....
i
•
I
\
. tribunal that at the time when the proceedings after
the remand· commenced Mr. Sharma's services were
not available, as he was apparently not in the service
of the State, and it was impossible to refer the matter
to him for his adjudication. That is the finding made
by the appellate tribunal and this finding is fully
justified. Therefore, since Mr. Sharma's services were
not available to the appropriate Government it was
perfectly competent to the said Government to fill in
the vacancy and appoint Mr. Jacob in his place to
take up the work of adjudication. Therefore, tl'l.ere is
no substance in the contention that the deeision of
Mr. Jacob is invalid in law.
The last contention urged is thail the reference is
invalid inasmuch as the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer
was not competent to refer the present dispute for
adjudication under s. 10(1) read with s. 12(5) of the
Act.
The argument is that the Textile Industry has
been included at serial No. 23 in the First Schedule to
the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act,
1951 (Act 65 of 1951) and as such the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not the appropriate Government
under s. 2(a)(i) of the Act. It is urged, that the present
dispute could have been validly refet\red for adjudication to the industrial tribunal only by the Central
Government. Section 2(a)(i) inter alia defines the
(t) [19,9] S.C.R. n9x.
)
-
-
""\--
-r
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
989
appropriate Government as meaning, in relation to
x96v
any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried
on by or under the authority of the Central GovernB. c. Milts Ltd.
b
~
mentor y a railway company or concerning any Their Workmen
such controlled industry as may be specified in this
b_ehalf by the Central Government, the Central Gajendragadkar ].
Government. The question which arises is: has the
textile industry been specified as controlled industry
in this behalf by the Central Government ? · It is true
that the textile industry is controlled by the provisions
of Act 65 of 1951 and in that sense it is controlled
industry ; but that would not be enough to attract
the application of s. 2(a)(i) of the Act. What this
latter provision requires is that the Central Government must specify "in this behalf" that the industry
in question is a controlled industry; in other words
the specification must be made by the Central Government by reference to, and for the purpose of, the provisions of the Act in order that the Central Government may itself become the appropriate Government
qua such industry under s. 2(a)(i) of the Act. It.is
conceded by Mr. Sastri that no such specification has
been made by the Central Government. Indeed, we
ought to add in fairness to Mr. Sastri that he did not
very seriously press this. point.
The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed with·
costs.
Appeal dismissed.
M/S. ROHTAS SUGAR LTD., & OTHERS
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO AND
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Seasonal Industries-Unskilled workmen-Retaining allowance
for off season-If wage structure to be raised in lieu of reta-ining
allowances.
The unskilled seasonal workmen of the.Bihar Sugar Industry,
bulk of whom belonged to the landless labou.rer class, who ceased
to have any contractual relation with the employers once the
•
February, xa
•
•
•