# Union of India v. MaharaJa Krishnagarh i-. Mills Ltd - **Citation:** [1961] 3 S.C.R. 536 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1958-01-13 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 416 of 1!158 an.; 19 of 1959 - **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. WANCHoo, K. c. DAS GUPTA - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-v-maharaja-krishnagarh-i-mills-ltd-2044 - **Pages:** 28 ## Headnote Industrial dispute-Bonus-Living Wage, determination of. The workmen claimed bonus for the year 1956 equivalent to nine months' total earnings on the ground that the employers had admitted their capacity to pay and that there was a big gap between the wage actually received and the living wage. The employers contended that they were paying the workmen a living wage and they were not entitled to any bonus. The employers relying mainly on the Report of the Textile Labour Committee, 1940, contended that if the living wage in 1940, i.e., R,s. 55/· was multiplied by 3·5 (due to rise in prices) it gave Rs. 192·50 as the living wage in 1956 and they were paying their workmen at a higher rate. The workmen relied on the recommendations of the Indian Labour Conference, 1957, to show that Rs. 209·70 approximat.ed to the standard of the need-based minimum wage and that the average. wag:e paid by the employers was nothing more than this. The Tribunal held that the wages paid were fair but that there was still a gap between the actual wage and the living wage and awarded bonus equivalent to five months' basic wages. Held, that the employers had failed to establish that they were paying a living wage to the workmen. In construing wage structure the considerations of right and wrong, propriety and impropriety, fairness and unfairness are also taken into account to some extent. As the social conscience of the general community becomes more alive and active, as the welfare policy of the State takes a more dynamic form, as the national economy progresses from stage to stage, and as under the growing strength of the trade union movement collective bargaining enters the field, wage structure ceases to be a purely arithmetical problem. Wages are usually divided into three broad categories: the basic rninin1um wage, the falr wage and the living \vage. The concept of these three wages cannot be described in definite words as their contents are elastic and vary from time to time and fro111 place to place. The concept. of a living wage js not a static concept; it is expanding and the numb·er of its constituents and their I 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 537 respective contents art bound to expand and widen with the I96I development and growth of national economy. In an underdeveloped country no wage structure could be described as Sta•dard Vacuu"' reaching the ideal of a living wage. It is unreasonable and unsafe Rejini•g Co. •I to treat the Report o! the Textile Labour Committee, 1940, as to India the monetary value of the Jiving wage in 1940 as sound. The v. figure reached.by the committee in 1940 did not represent anyIts Workm1• thing like a living wage; it really represented the minimum need. based wage. Besides, the method of multiplying the figure by 3·5 was materially defective; the proper approach was to evaluate each constituent of the concept of the living wage iii the light of the present day prices. Even the highest average wage paid by the employers was much below the standard of the living wage though it was above the need.based minimum. Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. 'l· Union of India, [1959] S.C.R. 12, Standard Vacuum Oil Company v. Their Workmen, [1952] 1 L.L.J. 839, Burmah Shell, etc., Oil Companies in Madras v. Their Employees, [1954J r L.L.J. 782, Workers of S.V.O.C. Ltd. (Standard Vacuum Employees' Union) v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd., (1957] 1 L.L J. 165 and Standard Vacuum Oil Company v. Thtir Employeef, [1954] l L.L.J. 484, referred to. Burmah-SheU Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India, Ltd., Bombay v. Their Workmen, [1953] 2 L.L.J. 246, approved. Quaere :-Whether the workmen would be entitled to bonus ever> if a living wage is paid to them by the employers. Muir Mills Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, [1955] r S.C.R. 991 and Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1958] S.C.R. 878, referred to. ## Text _Characters 0–39,794 of 65,063. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39794 for what follows._ Union of India v. MaharaJa Krishnagarh i-. Mills Ltd. Sinha C.J. January 20. 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] is that the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dismissed with costs here and in the High Court. Appeal allowed. STANDARD VACUUM REFINING CO. OF INDIA v. ITS WORKMEN AND ANOTHER. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHoo and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ .. ) Industrial dispute-Bonus-Living Wage, determination of. The workmen claimed bonus for the year 1956 equivalent to nine months' total earnings on the ground that the employers had admitted their capacity to pay and that there was a big gap between the wage actually received and the living wage. The employers contended that they were paying the workmen a living wage and they were not entitled to any bonus. The employers relying mainly on the Report of the Textile Labour Committee, 1940, contended that if the living wage in 1940, i.e., R,s. 55/· was multiplied by 3·5 (due to rise in prices) it gave Rs. 192·50 as the living wage in 1956 and they were paying their workmen at a higher rate. The workmen relied on the recommendations of the Indian Labour Conference, 1957, to show that Rs. 209·70 approximat.ed to the standard of the need-based minimum wage and that the average. wag:e paid by the employers was nothing more than this. The Tribunal held that the wages paid were fair but that there was still a gap between the actual wage and the living wage and awarded bonus equivalent to five months' basic wages. Held, that the employers had failed to establish that they were paying a living wage to the workmen. In construing wage structure the considerations of right and wrong, propriety and impropriety, fairness and unfairness are also taken into account to some extent. As the social conscience of the general community becomes more alive and active, as the welfare policy of the State takes a more dynamic form, as the national economy progresses from stage to stage, and as under the growing strength of the trade union movement collective bargaining enters the field, wage structure ceases to be a purely arithmetical problem. Wages are usually divided into three broad categories: the basic rninin1um wage, the falr wage and the living \vage. The concept of these three wages cannot be described in definite words as their contents are elastic and vary from time to time and fro111 place to place. The concept. of a living wage js not a static concept; it is expanding and the numb·er of its constituents and their I 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 537 respective contents art bound to expand and widen with the I96I development and growth of national economy. In an underdeveloped country no wage structure could be described as Sta•dard Vacuu"' reaching the ideal of a living wage. It is unreasonable and unsafe Rejini•g Co. •I to treat the Report o! the Textile Labour Committee, 1940, as to India the monetary value of the Jiving wage in 1940 as sound. The v. figure reached.by the committee in 1940 did not represent anyIts Workm1• thing like a living wage; it really represented the minimum need. based wage. Besides, the method of multiplying the figure by 3·5 was materially defective; the proper approach was to evaluate each constituent of the concept of the living wage iii the light of the present day prices. Even the highest average wage paid by the employers was much below the standard of the living wage though it was above the need.based minimum. Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. 'l· Union of India, [1959] S.C.R. 12, Standard Vacuum Oil Company v. Their Workmen, [1952] 1 L.L.J. 839, Burmah Shell, etc., Oil Companies in Madras v. Their Employees, [1954J r L.L.J. 782, Workers of S.V.O.C. Ltd. (Standard Vacuum Employees' Union) v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd., (1957] 1 L.L J. 165 and Standard Vacuum Oil Company v. Thtir Employeef, [1954] l L.L.J. 484, referred to. Burmah-SheU Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India, Ltd., Bombay v. Their Workmen, [1953] 2 L.L.J. 246, approved. Quaere :-Whether the workmen would be entitled to bonus ever> if a living wage is paid to them by the employers. Muir Mills Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, [1955] r S.C.R. 991 and Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1958] S.C.R. 878, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 416 of 1!158 an.; 19 of 1959. Appeals by special leave from the Award dated January 13, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (I. T.) No. 218 of 1957. M. 0. Seuuvad, Attorney.General, for India, N. A. Pal,. khivala, G. B. Pai and G. GopalakriBhnan, for the appellant (Iu C.A. No. 416 of 58) and respondent No. 1 (In C.A. No. 19 of 1959). H. R. Gokhal,e, S. B. Naik and K. R. Choudhury, for the respondent No. 1 (In C.A. No. 416 of 1958) and appellant (In C.A. No.19 of 1959). 1961. January 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-These two cross-appeals Gaj•ndragadkarJ. arise from an industrial dispute between the Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. (hereafter called 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] r96r the appellant) antl its workmen (hereafter called the -- respondents). This dispute related to a claim for Standa•d Vacuum b d b h d ' h JJ Refining Co. of onus ma e y t e resp~n ents agamst t e appe ant India for the year commencmg on January 1, 1956, and v. ending with December 31, 1956. The respondents I" IVo•kmen claimed that for the relevant year they were entitled . -- to receive by way of bonus their nine months' total Ga;end•agadka• J. earnings inclusive of all allowa.nces and overtime and extra-time earnings. After this demand was made the conciliation officer attempted conciliation between the parties but his efforts failed, and so he submitted a failure report under s. 12(4) of .the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947). The Government of Bombay then considered the said report and was satisfied that there was a case for reference of the said dispute to the Tribunal. That is how the present reference carue to be made under s. 12(5) of the Act. The respondents who have made the present claim include 648 employees; amongst them 524 are operatives and 124 belong to the clerical cadre. Before the Tribunal the respondents' case was tha.t during the conciliation proceedings tho appellant had admitted its capacity to pay and to meet the entire c\a.im ·of bonus made by them; and so it was urged that it was unnecessary to screen the respondents' claim through the Full Bench formula. They further alleged that the appellant. was not paying a living wage to the respondents and there still remained a large g&p between the wage actually received by them and the living wage to which they would be ultimately entitled. According to the respondents t.heir claim for bonus should be examined solely by reference to the gap which had to be filled up between the two wages ; and in determining the amount of bonus all the legitimate requirements of the respondents should be carefully considered. This claim was denied by the appellant. It denied the respondents' 11.Jlegation that during conciliation proceedings it had admitted its capacity to pay the entire amount of bonus claimed by the respondents. It then specifically averred that in law the respondents were uot entitled to any bonus bemwse the f I ••, 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 539 appellant was paying them a living wage and so one 1961 of the essential conditions for the payment of bonus, Standard vacuum namely, the need to fill the gap bet.ween the actual Refining Co, of wage and the living wage was absent in the present India case. The appellant then set out its calculations in v. d h d '.tr !Is Workmen regard to the average wages pai to t e 1uerent categories of respondents and supported its plea that Gajendragadka. J they were not entitled to any bonus at all. It may be added that the appellant had already voluntarily paid three months' basic wages to the respondents by way of bonus, but since the respondents were making a much larger claim the appellant thought it necessary to raise this general iisue of law and to contend that the respondents were not entitled to any bonus at all. On these pleadings the Tribunal had to consider the said question of law, but it appears that the material produced before it was so limited and meagre that it thought it would not be possible to arrive at any defi. nite opinion on the question of what is the living wage in Bombay; apparently the Tribunal also thought that it was unnecessary to do so, because it has observed that the present dispute did not relate to wage scales and that the living wage was an, illusive concept. Even so, having broadly considered the contentions raised by the appellant it held that "the wages are fair but there is still in a large number of cases a gap between the actual wage and the living wage." On this finding the Tribunal proceeded to examine the other contentions raised by the parties in regard to the quantum of bonus which should be awarded o,nd it reached the conclusion that the respondents were entitled to receive five months' basic earnings " excluding dearness and other allowances and overtime" as bonus for the relevant year. Accordingly it has made an award to that effect and has issued appropriate directionsl.n that behalf. This award is challenged by the appellant in its Civil Appeal No. 416 of 1958, and it is urged by the leamed Attorney-General on its behalft.hat the tribunal should have held that the appellant was paying a living wage to the respondents and that there was no case for 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] x96x awarding any bonus to the respondents at all during -- the relevant year. On the other hand the respondents Sta•dard v-um h II b . . . Refining Co. of c a enge the award y their C1v1l Appeal No. 19 of India 1959, and it is urged by Mr. Gokhale on their behalf v. that the tribunal was in error in not awarding the resIts Workmen pondents a higher bonus than five months' basic wages. - . That is how the two cross-appeals arise from the Gajendragankar ]. award under appeal. The learned Attornev-General bas criticised the approach adopted by the tribunal in dealing with the question of living wage. He contends that it was necessary that the tribunal should have carefully examined the material produced before it and should have made a definite finding one way or the other. He commented on the fact that the finding is vague and indefinite, and he has contended that the tribunal should have made it clear as to what it exactly meant when it observed that in a large number of cases a gap between the actual wage and the living wage subsisted. This criticism is partly justified. We think it would have been better if the tribuna.l had addressed itself to the question raised before it by the appellant and made a more definite and precise finding. In this connection, it must, however, be added that the oil companies have been raising this plea for some years past and the plea has been consistently rejected by tribunals during all these years. The present tribunal itself has had occasion to deal with this plea raised by the oil distributing companies, and since the plea had never succeeded in the past and no material change had been proved in regard to the relevant t year the tribunal was probably disinclined to treat the J • plea very seriously and that m1>y explain the approach ,, adopted by it in dealing with the said plea in the 'Ii present proceedings. Besides, the tribunal took the view, and we think rightly, that the material produced by the appellant in support of its plea is wholly insufficient and meagre. The point raised is one of general importance and any positive finding on the content of the concept of a living wage in the context of today would naturally affect industrial adjudication in regard to claims of 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 541 bonus in all industries. That is why, if the appellant ~ 6 ' was serious about its contention that the living wage Standard vacuum standard had been reached in its wage structure it Refining Co. of should ha.ve produced more satisfactory evidence India which would have enabled the tribunal to attempt the v. Its Workmen task of concretely defining what the concept of living _ wage means in the context of today. Absence of Gajendyagadhar J. sufficient and satisfactory material may also explain the approach adopted by the tribunal in dee.ling with this issue. At the hearing before us the learned AttorneyGeneral suggested that we should remand the case to enable his client to lead further and more satisfactory evidence. We have rejected this request. The appellant knew fully well the implications of the plea. raised by it and the very large issue which the tribunal would have to consider in dee.ling with the merits of the said plea. If the appellant was content to support its plea. on certain material and did not attempt to lead more satisfactory evidence it cannot blame the tribune.I for dee.Jing with the matter on the material such as it was. In such a case it would be futile for the appellant to ask for indulgence from this Court at this late stage. It is admitted that the appellant has pa.id three months' basic wages as bonus to the respondents voluntarily for the relevant year, and we were told that an agreement has been reached between the parties in respect of bonus for subsequent years until 1963. They have agreed that for the two succeeding years the decision of this Court will apply and for five years thereafter a specific agreement has been reached for raising the wage-structure and providing for the payment of bonus at the agreed rate. The learned Attorney-General faintly suggested that the appellant has agreed to pay bonus voluntarily in this manner but the payment is gratuitous and should not affect the main plea raised by it in the present proceedings. Even so, the question· raised by the appellant sounds academic and unrealistic, and that is another reason why it is not entitled to the indulgence for which the learned Attorney-General has pressed before us. We would, therefore, deal with the point 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] 1961 seriously urged before us on behalf of the appellant on Standard vacuum the material produced before the tribuna,J and such Refining Co. of additional material as was brought to our notice. India At the outset it is necessary to state that the plea v. raised by the appellant assumes that as soon as a Its ;VorkNien __ living wage standard has been reached by any employGajendragadkar J. er it would be unnecessary for him to pay any bonus to his employees. The learned Attorney-General has naturally relied on the decisions of this Court as well as the decisions of industrial tribunals in support of his argument that the Full Bench formula which governs the decision of bonus disputes postulates that a claim for bonus can be entertained if two conditions are satisfied; the employer must have made profit in the relevant year, which after the deduction of prior charges leaves sufficient available surplus; and there must be a gap between the wages actually paid to the employees and the living wage standard which they hope to reach in due course. In dealing with bonus claims industrial adjudication has so far proceeded on the aSBumption that in t.he making of profits labour makes its cont\!ibution, and that since it is not receiving a living wage it is entitled to claim that the gap between the actual and the living wages should be filled by the payment of bonus for each relevant year; that no doubt appears to be the result of the relevant decisions on the point (Vide: Muir Mills Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur('); The Sree Meenakahi Mills LuJ,. v. Their Workmen('). We will revert to this point later. Meanwhile let us proceed to examine the merits of the contention that the appellant is paying the respondents a living wage. It is well known that the problem of wage structure with which industrial adjudication is concerned in a modern democratic State involves on the ultimate analysis to some extent ethical and social considerations. The advent of the doctrine of a welfare State is based on notions of progressive social philosophy which have rendered the old doctrine of laissez-faire obsolete. In the nineteenth century the relation between employers and employees were usually governed (I) [1955) I $.C.R. 991. (•l [1958] $.C.R. 878, 88 ... r ,·, -, ;. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 543 r ~ -- - . ·by the_ economic principle of supply and deD;iLiiJ;-~~d-· . z96z the employers thought that they were entitled to hire .-. • b th • t d t d" • h · h .. - Standard Va<••"' ,a ~ur on . e1r erms an. o 1sm1ss t e same ·at t e1r Refining co~ of ch01ce subject to the specific terms of contract between India · them, if any. The theory of " hire· and fire "·as well v. _ . as the _theory of." supply and demand" which were /Is WorAmtn allowed free scope under the doctrine of laissez-faire . -,. ·1 l h Id th fi Id . I . · Ga;end1•&••••• • no onger . o e e . n eonstructmg ·a. . wage . structure in a. given case industrial adjudication does e take into account to some extent "'Considerations of righf and wrong, propriety and impropriety, fairness and unfairness. As the social conscience of the genera.I community becomes more a.live· and· active; as the welfare policy of the State takes a. more dynamic form, as the national economy progresses from stage to stage, and as under the growing strength of the trade union movement collective bargaining enters the field, wage structure ceases to be a pu:ely · arithmetical · problem. Considerations of the· financial position of the employer and the state of national economy have their say, and the requirements of a wcirkt:nan living in a civilised and progressive society also ccime. to be recognised. It is in that sense', and rio 'doubt to a: limited extent, that the social. philosophy of the age supplies the background for the decision of industrial disputes · as ·· to wage structure. As 1\lrs. Barbara Wootton has pointed out,'the social and ethical impli, cations of the arithmetic and the economics of wages · cannot be ignored in the present age ('). · · · ·It is because of this· socio-economic ·aspect of . the wage structure that industrial adjudication postulates that no employer can engage industrial labour unless he pays it what may be regarded as the minimum basic wage. If he cannot pay such a wage he has no l'ight to engage labour, and no justification for· carrying on his industry; in other words, tho · employment of sweated labour which would be easily available to the employer in all undeveloped and even under-developed countries is ruled out on the ground that the principle of supply and demand has lost its validity in the (1) ••The Social Found~tlons of W~e Policy'" b7 BarbO:i Wootton- - Allen &: Unwin. -19-'.5· ' 1 • 10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961) I96I matter of employment of human labour, and that it - is the duty of the society and the welfare State to Slafldard V aeuum t k d ' · d ' 1 R•fi•i•g co. of a.ssure ho every wor fmahn e~gatghe m m ut stfr1tah o~eraItldi• t1ons t e payment o w at m e contex o e times v. appears to be the be.sic minimum wage. This position · Ii. Work"''" is now universally recognised. In dealing with wage structure it is usual to divide Gaj.,.dr•gadk•r J. wages into three broad categories: the basic minimum wage is the be.re subsistence wage; above it is the fair wage, and beyond the fair wage is the living wage. It would be obvious that the concepts of these three wages cannot be described in definite words because their contents are elastic and they are bound to vary from time to time and from country to country. Sometimes the said three categories of wages are described as the poverty level, the subsistence level and the comfort or the decency level. It would be difficult and also inexpedient to attempt the task of giving an adequate precision to these concepts. What is a subsistence wage in one country may appear to be much below the subsistence level in another; the same is true about a fair wage and a living wage; what is a fair wage in one country may be treated as a living wage in another, whereas what may be regarded as a living wage in one country may be no more than a fair wage in another. Several attempts have nevertheless been made to describe generally the contents of these respective concepts from time to time. · The most celebrated of these attempts was me.de by Mr. Justice Higgins in his judgment in 1907 in a proceeding usually referred to as the Harvester Case. Sitting as President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, the learned Judge posed the question as to what is the model or criterion by which fairness or reasonableness is to be determined, and he answered it by saying that " a fair and reasonable wage in the case of an unskilled labourer must be an amount adequate to cover the normal needs of the average employee regarded as a human being living in a civilised community." (1) (1) Cited by Foend0< in ,"Bettor Employment Relations", •95i· PP· 177, 178, 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 545 In their work "Industrial Democracy " published in z96z 1920 Sidney and Beatrice Webb observed that "there 51 ~-;. is a growing feeling not confined to trade unionists ;~ning :!.."~,,. that the best interests in the community can only be Irui•a attained by deliberately securing to each section of v. the workers those conditions which are necessary for Its w .. hnu• the continuous and efficient fulfilment of its particular G . ,-dA J function in the social machine " (p. 590). •1•• '"'" "' In 1919 the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labour Statistics conducted a tentative budget enquiry in the United States of America, and analysed the objects with reference to three concepts, namely, the pauper and poverty level, the minimum of subsistence level and the minimum of health and comfort level; the last was taken for determining the standard of a living wage. This classification was approved by the Royal Commission on the Basic Wage for the Common· wealth of Australia, and it proceeded through norms and budget enquiries to ascertain what the minimum of comfort level should be. The Commission quoted with approval the description of minimum health &nd comfort level in the following terms : "This represents a slightly higher level than that of subsistence, providing not only for the material needs of food, shelter and body covering, but also for certain comforts such as clothing sufficient for bodily comfort, and to maintain the wearer's instinct of self-respect and decency, some insurance against the more important misfortunes--death, disability and fire-good education for the children, some amusement, and some expenditure for self. development " (1 ). According to the United Provinces Labour Enquiry Committee wages were classified into four categories. poverty level, minimum subsistence level, the subsistence plus level, and the comfort level(•). The third category would approximate to the fair wage, and the fourth to the living wage. According to the South Australian Act of 1912 the living wage means "a sum (1) Cited in the Report of the Committee on Fair Wagea published b7 the Govemment of Iuclia, lllniatcy of Labour-pp. 5 and 6. (2) Ibid. p. 6. 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] I96' sufficient for the normal and reasonable needs of the SI d -d v average emplovee living in a locality where work •• ar acuum d 'd " . . d . t b d " 0 th Refining co. of un er cons1 erat10n 1s one or 1s o e one . n e India other hand, the Queensland Industrial Conciliation v. and Arbitration Act provides that the basic wage Its Workmen paid to an adult male employee shall not be less than is "sufficient to maintain a well-conducted employee 'Jajindragadkar f. of average health, strength and competence, and his wife and a family of three children in a fair and average standard of comfort, having regard to the conditions of living prevailing among employees in the calling in respect of which such basic wage is fixed, and provided that in fixing such basic wage the earnings of the children or wife of such employee shall not be taken into account "(' ). The Fair Wages Committee which made its Report in 1949 broadly accepted the view expressed by the Royal Commission on the basic wage for the Commonwealth of Australia which we have already cited. According to the Committee, " the living wage should enable the male earner to provide for himself and his family not merely the bare essentials of food, clothing and shelter but a measure of frugal comfort including education for the children, protection against illhealth, requirements of essential social needs, and a measure of insurance against the more important misfortunes including old age(')." The Committee emphasised that "the minimum wage must provide not merely for the bare sustenance of life but for the preservation of the efficiency of the worker. For this purpose the minimum wage must also provide for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities"('). In this connection it would be useful to refer to the observations made by Philip Snowden in regard to the concept of living wage. These observations a.re generally cited with approval by industrial tribunals. Sa.id Snowden, "it may be possible to give (1) Cited in the Report of the Committee on Fair Wages published by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour-p . .5· (2) Ibid. p. 7. (3) Cited in the Report of the Committee on Fair Wages published by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour-p. s. I 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 547 a. precise or satisfactory definition of a. living wage, ,95, but it expresses a.n idea., a. belief, a. conviction, a. demand. The idea of a living wage seems to come Standa>d Vacuum from the fountain of justice which no man has ever Reft~i•8 Co. of seen, which no man has ever explained, but which we 1 ~:i• a.U know is an instinct divinely implanted in the Tis w 07;,.,. human heart. A living wage is something far greater than the figures of a wage schedule. It is at the Gajendragadkur ]. same time a. condemnation of unmerited and unneces. sary poverty and a. demand for some measure of justice (1 )." On the problem of converting the concept of living wage into monetary terms this iA • hat Snowden had said: "The amount of the living wage in money terms will vary as between trade and trade, between locality and locality. But the idea is that every workman shall have a wage which will maintain him in the highest state of industrial efficiency, which will enable him to provide his family with all the material things which are needed for their health and physical well-being, enough to enable him to qualify to discharge his duties as a citizen"('). It is in this broad and idealistic sense that Art. 43 of the Constitution has referred to the Jiving wage when it enunciates the Directive Principle that the State shall endeavour, inter alia, to secure by suitable legislatiou, or economic organisation, or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. This Court has recognised this idealistic position of the concept of living wage in the case of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. The Union of India('). It would thus be obvious that the concept of a living wage is not a static concept ; it is expanding and the number of its constituents and their respective contents are bound to expand and widen· with the development and growth of national economy. That is why it would be impossible to attempt the {I) Philip Snowden "The Living Wage", p. 1. (>) Ibid. p. 6, (3) [1959) S.C.R. n, 7g-82. 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961) I96I task of determining the extent of the requirement of - the said concept in the context of today in terms of Slandard Vacuum d · h · 1 1 d Refining Co. af rupees, a~nas an pies on t e sc~nty matena p ace India before us m the present proceedmgs. We apprehend v. that it would be inexpedient and unwise to make an Its Workmen effort to concretise the said concept in monetary terms ;ajendragadkar 1 with any degree of definiteness or precision even if a "fuller enquiry is held. Indeed, it may be true to say that in an under-developed country it would be idle to describe any wage structure as containing the ideal of the living wage, though in some cases wages paid by certain employers may appear to be higher than those paid by others. As observed in its Report by the Commission of Enquiry on "Emoluments and Conditions of Service of Central Government Employees, 1957-59 ", "taking a standard family as consisting of four members of whom only one is an earner, the average income of a family at the highest figure during the nine years ending in 1957·58 would work out at Rs. l,166/- per annum or about.· Rs. 97/- per mensem. The minimum wage cannot be of the order of Rs. 125/- when on the b