# WEAVING MILLS v. WORKMEN AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 716
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/weaving-mills-v-workmen-and-others-2540
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

1961
M olioalol Chunilal
Ko4horft
••
Triblt""1'1 Ha,ibhai
Tamboli
Sinha C. J.
1961
May2.
716
!UPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
apply the law a~ it was found on the date of its
judgment. Hence, there is no question of taking
a.way any vested rights in the landlords. It does
not appear that the second notification, cancelling
the first notification, had been brought to the notice
of the learned Single Judge, who heard and decided
the second appeal in the High Court. At any rate,
there is no reference to the second notification. Be
that as it may, in our opinion, the learned Judge
came to the right conclusion in holding that the
tenantll could not be ejected, though for wrong
reasons. The appeals are accordingly dismissed,
but there would be no order as to costs in this
Court, in view of the fact that the respondents had
not brought the second notification cancelling the
first to the pointed attention of the High Court.
(P.
Appeal dismissed.
BIRLA COTTON SPINNING &
WEAVING MILLS
v.
WORKMEN AND OTHERS
B. GAJXNDRAGADKAR, K. SUllBA RAO, K. N.
WANOHOO, J. C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR, JJ,)
. lr1duatrial Diapute-Standardisatwn of wage alt'UclureDuignation of toorkm<n.
.
The dispute between the respondents and the appellants
regarding mistries and line jobbers was referred to the Tribunal
regarding the increase and standardi<ation of wages and regarding the designation of workmen doing th~ work of fancy
j(>hbers and their pay. The appellant contended that an
rarlier award of I 951 had not been terminated and that the
reference was incompetent. The Tribunal directed s!andardi·
sation on the basis of the Bombay Scheme. The Tribunal
,,
)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
717
acceded to the claim regarding fancy jobbers. Finally the Tribunal directed that "whereever the said existing wages are
higher than those fixed under the Bombay Standardisation
Scheme, they shall remain and ,shall not be lowered" and that
regarding operatives who were designated differently from
Bombay list, they should be paid what those described by any
other name but doing identical work were being paid i1,1 Bombay and that the adjustment of anomalies that might . arise in
this matter should be decided by a Committee consisting of the
representatives of the Management and the Union.
·
Hel<I, that the agreement following the earlier award
.-as not a settlement within the meaning of.s. 19(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was Competent.
Hel<I, further, that the Tribunal ought to . have considered the applicability of the Bombay Standardisation Scheme
to thecondition-.in Qelhi·by exai;nining evidence and that the
Tribllilal ought not to have shut out evidence in respect of the
working of the Boi;nhay Standardisation Scheme in Delhi and
that the Tribunal had not. considered the matter carefully and
made such modifications as might be neccs'lary. The Tribu·
nal ought not to.have delegated the determination and iuljustment of the anomalies in applying the Bombay standardisation
scheme to a joi1,1t committee b lt should have wnsidcred ·and
determined th<ise matters itself.
Hel<I, further, that in the event of standardisation it may
be necessary if justice demanded it to give some mcasuie of
protection to such individual workmen as were getting higher
wages than what they would get under standardisation scheme.
But the matter will have to be considered by .the Tribunal
subject to three conditions: viz., (I) there can be no .further
rise in wages of those protected by the operation of the standardisation of scheme, (2) if. there is an . incremental. scales fixed hy the standardisation scheme and the proteeted workmen
are getting between the minimum and the · maximum . but arc
.not entitled thereto according to the length '.of their service;
future increments should be adjusted till the j>rotected workmen find their proper place In the scale according to the length
of service, and (3) the category of protected workmen should
in.due course exhaust by the termi

## Text

1961
M olioalol Chunilal
Ko4horft
••
Triblt""1'1 Ha,ibhai
Tamboli
Sinha C. J.
1961
May2.
716
!UPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
apply the law a~ it was found on the date of its
judgment. Hence, there is no question of taking
a.way any vested rights in the landlords. It does
not appear that the second notification, cancelling
the first notification, had been brought to the notice
of the learned Single Judge, who heard and decided
the second appeal in the High Court. At any rate,
there is no reference to the second notification. Be
that as it may, in our opinion, the learned Judge
came to the right conclusion in holding that the
tenantll could not be ejected, though for wrong
reasons. The appeals are accordingly dismissed,
but there would be no order as to costs in this
Court, in view of the fact that the respondents had
not brought the second notification cancelling the
first to the pointed attention of the High Court.
(P.
Appeal dismissed.
BIRLA COTTON SPINNING &
WEAVING MILLS
v.
WORKMEN AND OTHERS
B. GAJXNDRAGADKAR, K. SUllBA RAO, K. N.
WANOHOO, J. C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR, JJ,)
. lr1duatrial Diapute-Standardisatwn of wage alt'UclureDuignation of toorkm<n.
.
The dispute between the respondents and the appellants
regarding mistries and line jobbers was referred to the Tribunal
regarding the increase and standardi<ation of wages and regarding the designation of workmen doing th~ work of fancy
j(>hbers and their pay. The appellant contended that an
rarlier award of I 951 had not been terminated and that the
reference was incompetent. The Tribunal directed s!andardi·
sation on the basis of the Bombay Scheme. The Tribunal
,,
)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
717
acceded to the claim regarding fancy jobbers. Finally the Tribunal directed that "whereever the said existing wages are
higher than those fixed under the Bombay Standardisation
Scheme, they shall remain and ,shall not be lowered" and that
regarding operatives who were designated differently from
Bombay list, they should be paid what those described by any
other name but doing identical work were being paid i1,1 Bombay and that the adjustment of anomalies that might . arise in
this matter should be decided by a Committee consisting of the
representatives of the Management and the Union.
·
Hel<I, that the agreement following the earlier award
.-as not a settlement within the meaning of.s. 19(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was Competent.
Hel<I, further, that the Tribunal ought to . have considered the applicability of the Bombay Standardisation Scheme
to thecondition-.in Qelhi·by exai;nining evidence and that the
Tribllilal ought not to have shut out evidence in respect of the
working of the Boi;nhay Standardisation Scheme in Delhi and
that the Tribunal had not. considered the matter carefully and
made such modifications as might be neccs'lary. The Tribu·
nal ought not to.have delegated the determination and iuljustment of the anomalies in applying the Bombay standardisation
scheme to a joi1,1t committee b lt should have wnsidcred ·and
determined th<ise matters itself.
Hel<I, further, that in the event of standardisation it may
be necessary if justice demanded it to give some mcasuie of
protection to such individual workmen as were getting higher
wages than what they would get under standardisation scheme.
But the matter will have to be considered by .the Tribunal
subject to three conditions: viz., (I) there can be no .further
rise in wages of those protected by the operation of the standardisation of scheme, (2) if. there is an . incremental. scales fixed hy the standardisation scheme and the proteeted workmen
are getting between the minimum and the · maximum . but arc
.not entitled thereto according to the length '.of their service;
future increments should be adjusted till the j>rotected workmen find their proper place In the scale according to the length
of service, and (3) the category of protected workmen should
in.due course exhaust by the termination of scrviee of such
workmen by retirement .or .otherwise.
·
Hel<I, that the direction of the Tribunai coi.ild be re~ to
mean the protection of CJ<istlng higher wages generally. rather
than the higher wages of particular workmen and such ·a thing
was not consistent with the principles of standardisation. ; ·
lHB
Bi<'la Collon Bpg. •
Wog.MIU1
v.
Worimln
196Z
•irU. Cotton S~. 41
W•g. MtlJ•
..
Wor~
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 104 of 11J56.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
December 29, 195a of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi
in I. D. No. 36 of 1957 published in the Delhi
Gazette dated 5th Mn.rch, 1959.
G. B. Pai and J. N. Shroff, for the A~pellant.
M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, S. C, Agarwala
and D. P. Singh, for the Respondent 1.
1962. May 2. The Judgement of the Court
wa.e delivtired by
WANcHoo, J.-This appeal by specia.1 lea.ve
a.rises out of an industrial dispute between the Birla
Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited (hereinafter called the appellant) and its workmen. A
large number of matters were referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal but in the present
appeal we are concerned with two, namely, (i) whether the wages require to be increa.eed and standardised, and what directions are neoess&ry in this
respect, a.nd (ii) whether a.ny of the workmen doing the work of fancy jobbers should be designated
a.nd paid accordingly. The first point has however
been confined to mistries and line jobbers only
as the other operatives were covered by another
award in another reference (No.I.D. 52 of 1957) bet·
ween the same parties, which wa.e decided earlier
by this tribunal. That award came in appeal this
Court and the decision of this Court is reported in
The Management of Birla Cotton Spinning and W eatJing Milla Ltd.. v. Its workmen ·(1). Thie court had
set aside the earlier award and sent the case back
to the tribunal to prO<'.eed in the manner indicated
in the judgment. We a.re told that that matter
ha.e ended in a compromise between the parties.
The claim of the workmen concerned in the present
(I) AJ.R, (l961) S.C. 11711.
' .
y
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
719
reference (namely, mistries and · line- jobbers) was
that their wages were low and not standardised and
in spite of representations made to the appellant,
nothing had been done in the matter. The workmen therefore claimed that the wages should be
increased and standardised and incremental pay
scales should be introduced so far as mistries and
line jobbers, were concerned. As to fancy jobbers
the workmen's claim wali that they had been wrongly designated recently as aBBistant fancy jobbers,
though they were doing the job of fancy jobbers.
It was therefore contended that they should be
designated as fancy jobbers and their pay also increased and standardised accordingly.
The appellant resisted the claim on a number
of grounds. It was contended firstly that there
was an earlier award in 1951 made by Shri Dulat,
which was still in force and therefore the reference
was incompetent. Next it was contended that
there was no comparison between the Swatantra
Bharat Mills and the Delhi Cloth Mills on the one
hand and the appellant-mills on the other and
therefore the wages prevalent in those mills could
not be taken as a standard for fixing wages for
the appellant's workmen. Thirdly, it was urged
that incremental scales were provided now]iere in
the textile industry and therefore·• this claim should
be rejected.
Fourthly, the workmen designated
as assistant fancy jobbers had been so designated
rightly aI!d could not claim to be fancy jobbers.
And lastly, it was urged that there was no. case for
applying the Bombay standardisation scheme. to
the appellant's workmen for conditions in Bombay
and Delhi were in many respect different.
' The tribunal rejected the contention that t11e
Dulat award of 1951 had not been terminated and
therefore the present reference was incompetent~
The tribunal further held that though there were
difference between the Swatantra Bharat Mills and
1901
B irlo C.ll011 Sit• •
Wr1t· Jl.i"ll•
v.
Wotbn1n
WonelrooJ.
1961
B;.la Cotlon Spg • .e
l,,g. MiUs
..
W0t"en
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTB [1983)
the Delhi Cloth Mille on tile one hand and the
appellant on the other, both in the matter of the '
working of the mills and in the matter of their financial position, they were not of importance &11 there
were bound to be differences between unit and unit
of the same industry a.nd thus the wages pa.id in
those two mills were comparable. As to tbe claim
for increm ~ntal scale of wages, the tribunal held
that no incremental scale . had been provided in
any standardisation scheme 1elating to textile
industry and rejected this claim. It further he Id •
that the workmen now designated as &BBistant
fancy jobbers were really fancy jobbers and had
been previoa.sly designated as such. Recently,
however, they started to be ca.lied assistant fancy
jobbers and therefore it was ordered that they
should be designated as fancy jobbers. And lastly,
the tribunal following its earlier award referred to
above held that the Bombay standardisation scheme
should be adopted for miatries and line jobbers
&11 well as . fancy jobbers. It also directed that
"'
"wherever the ea.id existing wages are higher than
those fixed under the
Bombay Standardisation
Scheme, they
shall remain
and shall not be
lowered". It also directe<l. that where operatives
were designated by any other name, either
not included in the Bombay list or materially
different from the one appearing in the list, they
should be paid the ea.me wa.ires as those doing identical work according to the Bombay list and a joint .
committee consisting of the representatives of the
management and the union might be formed to
investigate the anomalies, a.rising out of the applioation of the Bombay standardisation echeme, and
in "Case of disagreement the matter might be referred
to the industrial tribunal either through a regnlar
reference made with mutual consent or ae an arbitrator mutually agreed upon.
r
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT RE.PORTS
721
The appellant. challenges the award and its
main contentions are -·
(i) that the. reference was incompetent as the
Dulat award of 1951 had not been termi-
.
'
nated;
1 ,
(ii) · that the tribunal was wrong in holding
that the assistant fancy jobbers should be
designated as fancy jobbers;
,.
,,
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Re. (i).
that the tribunal was wrong in applying
the Bombay standardiBation · scheme to
the. appellant's workmen without allow·
ing the appellant even a chance of producing ·.evidence with respect to that
scheme and showing the difference bet·
ween the conditions in Bombay and the
conditions in Delhi, which would require
modification of that scheme in its application to the appellant's workmen;
that
the tribunal by directing the
appointment of a joint committee to
investigate the anomalies had not solved
the dispute referred t6 it with the result
that there would, be further disputes
arising out of this dir.ection of the tribunal; and
that· the tribunal's direction that "wherever the ea.in existing jWages are higher
than those fixed under the Bombay standardisation scheme, they ·~hall :.remain,
and shall not be lowered" is against the
principle on which the standar<fisation
schemes are· based.
The question whether the
1951 stood iii the way of the
.. j
Dnlat award of
present reference·
1982
Birla Cotton Spg.· •
Wt'g, Mi/l.r
•
••
Wurlmtn
Wanchoo I.
lflS
Bir/a Oo11<0 BH. "1
Wt:11. Milli
••
Wor.tmen
•
722
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963)
being oompet11nt was considered by this Court in
the earlier O&Se (referred to above) and was rejected. '
It w&e then pointed out that the Dul&t award had
held that there .w&B no justification for delaying
standardia&tion and haa ordered the parties to
work out & eoheme taking the Bombay award No. l
&& the working model. In pursuance of that direction, & eoheme was worked out and the parties
agreed to it on September 29, 1951. It wa.s urged
for the appellant that the agreed eoheme of September 1951 thus became in & sense a part of the -
Dul&t &ward and as it w&e terminated only in November 1956, while the present referenoe was made
on March 3, 1956, that award st,ood in the way of
the present reference being competent. This contention w&e negatived by this Court in its earlier
jud~ment on two grounds. In the first place, it
was pointed out that this agreement could not be
a part of the Dulat award in any sense and therefore
the Dul&t award could not stand in the way of the
oompetenoe of the referenoe even if it was not
terminated before the reference. In the second
y
plaoe, it was pointed that the agreement of 1951
did not a.mount to a settlement within the meaning
of a. 2 (p) of the Industrial Dispute& Aot, 1947, aa
it stood in 1951, and therefore s. 19 (2) would not
apply to that agreement. We were of opinion
that on the 11&111e reasoning the present argument
that the reference when it W&B made was incompetent beO&uee of the Dulat award being still in
force, must fail and the contention on this head '
ie rejected.
Re. (ii).
We &re of op1D1on th&t the tribunal w&11
zight in holding that It was only shortly before the
reference that thoae workmen who used to be
called fanoy jobbers began to be designated aa
&llllistant fanoy jobbers. The tribunal hae considered the entire evidence on this point and we are in
..
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
723
agreement .witli the view expressed by it, namely,
that the assistant fancy jobbers should be designated as fancy jobbers as before and the recent innovation calling them assistant fancy jobbers was
only a device to depress the status of this class
of workmen. The contention therefore on. this
head must also fail •.
Re. (iii)
It appears that the tribunal merely followed
its earlier award in ID 52 of 1957 when it proce&-
ded to apply the Bombay standardiS&tion scheme
to mistries and line jobbers as well as fancy jobbers. That award, as we have pointed out, was
set aside by this Court in the earlier judgment on
various grounds. It is not necessary for us to
repeat the reasons which impelled this Court in the
earlier appeal to set aside the award in ID 52 of
1957. Those reasons in our opinion apply with
full force to the present award also. in so far as it
introduces the Bombay standardisation scheme for
the workmen concerned in the present dispute. In
addition we may point out that the appellant wanted to produce evidence with respect to the Bo!Dbay
standardisation soheme and to summon two witnesses
from Bombay. and Kanpur with respect to the working of that scheme; bot the tribunal by its order ·
dated January 6, 1958, held that it was not necess·
ary to examine those witnesses in view of the con·
ditions obtaining in Delhi, the region with which
it was concerned. But even though the tn'bunal
thus refused to examine ·evidence with respect to
the· working of the Bombay standardisation scheme
it went on ~ the adopt that scheme in its entirety
without . any modification when it came to make
its award, in view of its earlier award. We are
of opinion that it · was not fair for the tribunal to
shut out evidence with respect ·to the working of
the Bombay staridardisation l)oheme which the'app·
ellant wanted to produce and then apply .Jhat
11162
Birla Coffo• 8pg. d
W•g.Mlll•
••
WOf'kmen
1962 -
Birla U 1t1W1
~/Jg, cf,
Wog .• ilit/1
y,
Wo1km,n
WanchooJ.
724
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
scheme without any modification to the appellantmill.
Another reaaon which impelled the tribunal
to apply the Bombay etandardiea.t.ion ecLeme in
this case waa stated by it to ho that the eoheme
was applicable to this claBB of workmen in the
Dolhi Cloth Mills and the Swatantra Bharat Mills.
Thie statement in our opinion is not borne out by
thtt evidenoe of the two witneBBes produced by the
workmen from those
two
mille.
Manobarlal
(W.W. 19), a labour officer of the Bharat Mille, WRI
eirn.mined in this connection. He stated that for
workttrs the Swatantra Bharat Mills had followed
the Bombay standardisation scheme in the matter
of payment of wages on voluntary basis but not
fo• mietries and jobbers. This statement was apparently treat.ed by the t.ribunal &11 meaning that
th" Bomhay standardisation scheme was applicable
·to mistri .. s and jobbers though Manohar Lal stated
ex,,ct.ly the oppnsite. It is true that Mauoharlal
stated that for certain categories of mistrice and
jobbers the Swatautra Bharat Mille paid more than
th" Bombay standardisation scheme gave to rnch
categories; Lut that does not mean that the Bombay standardisation scheme as such was applicable
to Rli mistriea and jobbers in the "watantra Bharat
Mills. The second witne.ss was B. L. Saxena, the
labour offioer. in the Delhi Cloth Mille. He stated
that the wages of line jobbers and mistries were
more in certain oases and in some cases at par with
the wages in the Bombay standardisation scheme.
But he also stated that the line jobbers and mistries in the Delhi Cloth Mille had not been brought
under the Bombay standardisation scheme. It
appears from the evidence of both these witnesee1
that th.,re is no fixed grade for mistries and jobbers and each one gets what may be called his own
pay.
Ther~fore in some caees the pay whioh a
jobber or a mistry gets may be higher or may be
v
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
725
equal to the wages in the standardisation scheme.
But this does not mean that the Bombay standardi·
sation scheme as suoh has been applied to mistries
and jobbers in the other two mills in Delhi. The
tribunal was therefore wrong even on a comparison of the other two mills in Delhi to hold that
the Bombay standardisation scheme should be
applied to the appellant·mills also.
The tribunal's award with respect to fanoy
jobbers would also show how the mRnner in which
the tribunal dealt with the application 'of the
Bombay standardisation scheme to the appellantmills has resulted in unfairness. After having
rightly held that the assistant -Canoy jobbers should
be designated as Canoy jobbers, the tribunal went
on to award that the fancy jobbers so designated
should be paid according to the Bombay stand!Lrdi.
sation scheme without apparently examining that
scheme. A copy of that scheme has been produced
before us and it shows that the Bombay scheme
envisages three categories of workers in what is
called Canoy work, namely, head fancy jobber, fancy
jobber and assistant fancy jobbers. Therefore before the tribunal decided to apply the Bombay
standardisation scheme it was neoeBBary to compare
the work done by the fanoy jobbers in the appellant.
mills with the work done by either the fanoy jobber
or assistant fanoy jobber in the Bombay standardisation scheme and then decide whether they would
come under the designation of fan"oy jobbers or
aBSistant fancy jobbers under the Bombay standardi~
sation scheme or some under one and some under the
other. We are therefore of opinion that the manner in which the case has been dealt with by the
tribunal show, as was pointed out in - the earlier
case also, that it was dealt with in a ever fnnctory
way, though in this case the tribunal had the exou8e
to follow its own award in the earlier case. We are
1968
Bir la C1 tton Yp1. C
Wvg. MUls
v.
Watkm"n
Wanch .. J.
I9dl
Bir/a 0,·1<m S/Jf. c6
Wo1. \/ill•
••
w .. """.
W01rthoo J.
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963)
however of opinion that if the Bombay standardisation scheme is tn be applied to the appellantmille with respect to the workmen concerned in the
pres-•nt appeal, the tribuna.I should go into the
matter. carefully again on the lines indicated by this
Court in its earlier judgmept and then decide whether the Bombay standardisation scheme as a whole
should be applied to the appellant-mills with respect
to the workmen concerned in the present dispute
or whether there should be any modification of that
scheme in view of differences between the conditions in Bombay and the conditions in Delhi. This
applies to all the workmen concerned in this appeal,
i. e. the line jobbers, mistrieR and fancy jobbers.
We are therefore of opinion that this appoo-1 must
be allowed and the <'.880 sent back to the tribunal
for reconsideration on the lines indicated above and
in aC'cordance with the earlier judgment of this
Court.
Re. (iv).
As to the direction by the tribunal that a joint
committee should be appointed to go into what is
call"d anomalies, it is enough to refer to what was
said by this Court in the earlier judjlillent
where a similar direction had been made. It wa.s
point.-d out there that l!y making the direction the
tribunal had left a part of the dispute to be resolved
by the parties themselves, so that the tribunal had
not done what it was expected to do itself under
the terms of referenoe. We set aside this direction
and order that the tribunal should go into this
matter itself with the assistance of assessors, if it
considers that necessary, before it applies the Bombay standardisation scheme either in its entirety or
with modification to the workmen concerned in the
appellant-mills.
Re. (v).
This brings us to the last point. The direction in the present award by the tribunal is that
.
'
..
'
. ...,,
., •
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
727
'•wherever the said existing wages are higher than
those fixed under the Bombay standardisation soheme, they shall remain, and shall not be lowered''.
Objeotion is ta.ken to this direction by the appellant.
There was a similar direction in the earlier award
also and in that conneotion this Court observed as
follows at p. ll82 :-
"It cannot be disputed that when a stand·
ardisation soheme oomes into force it is an
illtegrated whole and may sometime result in
some categories of. workmen getting l~ss than
what they were getting before. The whole
purpose of a standardisation scheme is to
standardise wages and where they are low to
raise them to the standardised level. Similarly where the wages are high they have to be
reduced in order to fit them in the stand·
ardised scheme. The tribunal therefore was
olea.rly wrong in aoting against the basic principle of a standardised soheme when it order·
ed that the wages should be increased according to the standardised scheme where they
were low but should not be Jecreased where
they were high. This principle of standard·
isation is clear and even the learned counsel
for the workmen had to admit it."
It is urged on behalf of the respondents that
these observations are liable to be misunderstood
and may give rise to the impression that it is not
open to a tribunal to proteot the wages of individual workmen who may be getting more than the
wages fixed under the standardisation scheme, at
the time when such a scheme comes into force.
The respondents do not dispute that the liasic
principal behind the standardisation scheme is
what has been stated by this Court; but they contend that though after a standardisation scheme
ha.a beon brought into force it may not be open
1961
Bir/a Cotton r:pg. d:J
Wvg Milli
v.
Workmen
Wanchoo J.
irla Cotton Sf't· &::
Wot· Mills
••
Workmen
WancluJo J.
728
SUPRF.ME COURT REPORTS (1963]
even to the management to give more wages than
those provided in the standardisation scheme,
that principal does not require neceBBB.ri!y that the
wages of individuals who might be drawing more
at the date the standardisation scheme comes into
force should also be reduced and should not be
protected for those individuals only. It is urged
that it is open to the tribunal to protect the wages
of such workmen who might he drawing more
than the wages fixed in the standardisation scheme,
though it may not be open to the management
after · the standardisation scheme comes into force
to pay more wage~ than fixed in the standardisation
scheme to any one employed thereafter. On the
other hand, it is contended for the appellant that
when a standardisation soheme C'omes into force
even the wages of individuals who. are getting more
than what is
provided in the standardisation
scheme must be reduced and the tribunal cannot
protect the wages even of such individuals. Reliance
in this connection has been placed on behalf of
the appellant on Daru v. Ahmedabad Spinning
and Manufacturi7111 Company limited. (I)
In that oase the principles governing a
standardisation scheme were considered by the
Bombay High Court considering the report of the
Textile Labour Inquiry Committee and also the
book of Dr. D. R. Gadgil on "ltegulation of wages
and other Problems of Industrial Labuur in India''.
It was pointed out that when in an industry divergent wages were being paid and there was considerable difforence between the top wage and the
lowest wage, it was very difficult to standardise
these wages and therefore the first thing to be done
was to fix a minimum wage which is generally
somewhere between the top and bottom; but where
wages in a particular occupation are not very
divergent and are more or ·Iese uniform, that is
(I) (19l5) I L. L. Cl. 555,
• ,
l.
•
....
~;
' 1
" ,
1
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
729
the time and the stage when a labour: tribunal
may well Htandardise those wages because in standardising them although it may result in some workers being paid less than what they are being
paid, the loss to them would not be considerable
and if it is in the interest of labour that all workers
should be paid the same wages who are doing the
same work then the standardisation would result
in benefit to the cause of labour.
There can be no dispute as to the validity
of these principles and their soundness will be clear
from the facts of that case.
In that case a standardisation scheme had been brought into force in
1948. ·In 1951, one of the mills governed
1 by the
standardisation scheme introduced a new section
the wages in which were covered by the standar·
disation scheme. However, the wages in the new
section fixed by the said mill were higher than
those fixed by the standardisation scheme. Later
in 1953, the mills gave notice to the workmen
reducing the wages fixed in · 1951 so as to
conform to the wages laid down in the standardisation scheme. This was objected to by the
workmen whose wages were reduced and that is
how the dispute arose. The High Court held in
those circumstances that in view of the fact that
the standardisation scheme was in force from 1948,
it was not 'open to the employer to, give higher
wages than those fixed in the standardisation
scheme in 1951 because it was of the essence of
the standardisation scheme that the wages for the·
same work should be equal and that where higher
wages had been paid than those fixed in the standardisation scheme. they should be reduced to that
level. That case however· was not concerned with.
protection of the wages of individuals who might
be getting more than what is provided in the
st&nda.rdisation scheme at the . time when it is
1981
Birla Cotton Spg. &:
Wog.Mills
•.
'
Workmen
WanchooJ.
1'62
airla Catton Spg. &
Wii1. MitU
v.
War.bnm
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
brought into force. It is in this context that the
observations made by the High Court have to be
understood and in that context tho observations
laying down the principles behind a standardisation
scheme &re, if we may say so with respect, sound.
It is however urged
on behalf of the
respondents that tho protection given by the
tribune.I in this oe.se is no more than prote<:tion for
individual workmen who may be getting more
wages than those fixed in the standardisation scheme when it comes into force and this direction is
correct, and that there is nothing in law which prevents the tribunal from giving such a direction for
the protection of individuals who might be getting
more wages at the time the standardisation scheme
is brought into force. It seems to us that it would
not be against the basic principle of standardisation
to which this Court referred in the earlier case
to protect the wages of individual workmen
who might be getting more than the wages fixed in
the standardisation scheme at the time when such
a scheme is brought into force. It will be for the
tribunal to deeide whether it will protect these
individual workmen or not. If it gives no direction for protection to individual workmen, they
will not be protected and their wages will have to
be lowered in case they a.re higher than those fixed
in tho standardisation scheme. But if the tribune.I
considers that it will be more in consonance with
justice to protect the wages of individual workmen
it may give a direction to that effect, even though
they may be more than the wages fixed in the
standardisation scheme. In such a case three conditions will always have to be borne in mind. In
the first place, there oe.n be no further raising of
the wages of these protected workmen by the management after the standardisation scheme comes
into force, for any such further rise will he age.inst
the principle of standardisation. In the sooond
f'
l
•
' -,
"fl/I
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
731
·,
~· place, if the standardisation soheme fixes incremental sca\e of wages and ifthe ·protected workman is
getting a wage which is between the minimum and
the maximum and he is not entitled in accordance
with the length of his service to that wage hut something lees in the grade, the extra amount that he
may be getting will have to be absorbed in future
increments till he is properly fitted in the incremental soale according to the length of service.
~··
~ Thirdly, when any workman's service comes to an
end for any reason whatsoever, no other employee
whether new or old would be entitled to claim the
pa.y which the outgoing employee was gettfog on
the ground that a vacancy with that higher pay has
arisen. :Subject to these three conditions it may be
open to a tribun'l.l to proteot the wages of iridividual workmen even though he may be getting
higher wages than those fixed in a sta.ndardisation
scheme at the time when the ~cheme is iritroduced.
·1
(
'
Now let us see what the tribunal has done in
this matter. It directs that "wherever the said
existing wages are higher than those fixed under
the Bombay standardisation scheme, they shall
remain, and shall not be lowered." This in our
opinion is not protection of iridividual workmen
but protection of wages, which may be higher than
those fixed in the standardisation scheme. This in
onr opinion cannot be done as it is' against the
basic principles of a standardisation scheme 1\8
observed iri the earlier case. The result of this
direction by the tribuna.I would be that a partioular post carrying with it higher wages will remain
protected so that when the individual who may be
getting that pay at the time the standardisation
scheme comes into force is no more employed, the
other workmen may be able to claim wages on the
ground that the wages have. been protected. The
proper way of giving proteotion, II the tribunal ·
thinks that justioe demands that individuals who
•
'
196!
Bi~la Cotton Sf;t. ct
, WPg. A1ills
v.
Workmen
&rla Cotton Spg. &.!
W•g. Mills
"
Workmen
WonehotJ.
732
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
are getting higher wages then those fixed under
a standardisation scheme should be protected,
is to direct that the wages of such individuals
should be fixed according to the standardisation
scheme, and the difference, if any, between their
wages and the standardised wages .should be
pa.id to them as personal pay so long as they are in
service. As soon as such an individual goes out of
service, another coming in his place will not be
entitled to the personal pay the outgoing workman
was getting, and will be fixed in the standardisation
scheme. The direction however of the tribunal in
this case is cr.pable of being read not for the protection of individuals but for the protection of wages,
and this in our opinion cannot b_e done in view of
the basic principles governing a standardisation
scheme.
We are therefore of opinion that the
dir~ction for tho protection of existing wages given
in the form in which it has been given by the
tribunal must be set aside. At the same time we
leave it to the tribunal to . decide if it considers it
just when the matter goes back to it for reconsideration whether individual workmen should be
protected, even in case a etandardisation scheme ie
introduced, in the manner we have indicated above.
We therefore allow the appeal and set aside
partly the order of the tribunal with respect to
certain matters with which we have dealt in the
course of this judgment and direct that the tribunal
should re-hear the reference and re-consider in the
light of this judgment and the earlier judgment
what should be its award witp respect to mistries,
line-jobbers and fancy jobbers in connection with
t.he following term of reference :
•·Whether the wages require to be increased and standardised, and what directions are
necessary in this respect."
-·
"
2 S.C . .B..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
733
~ Parties will be ·at liberty to lead suoh further
evidence on all mir.tters sent back for reconsidera·
tion as they· think fit. In the .oiroumstances we
order parties to bear their own costs. _
Appeal allowed.
THAKUR SUKHPAL~SINGH
"·
THAKUR KAtYAN SINGH
(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. J?As GUPTA and
RA.GHUBA.R DAYAL, JJ.)
App.al-Appellant appearing at hearing but not addressing
court-Diemiesal for default-Legality of-1f Court bound to
decide appeal on merits after perusal of record-Befueal of adjournment-Interference by appellate court-Code of OivilProced•
. ..;
ure, 1908 (Art. V of 1908), 0. 41, rr. 16, 30, 31, 32.
{
The appellant's appeal was listed for hearing before the ·
High Court four times during the course of about a year.
On the last occasion the appellant"s counsel stated that he
had no instructions. . The appellant who was present asked
for an adjournment to arrange for the fees and to instruct
another counsel. The adjournment was refused and upon
the appellant expressing inability to address the court the
High Court dismissed the appeal for default. The appellant
contended that the High Court was bound to dispose of the
'( appeal on merits ort the material before it.
Held, that. the High Court had the power to dismiss the
appeal without considering .the merits. An appellate court
was bound to consider only the submissions made by the
appellant and if. no submissions were made by him, it was not
bound to look tnto the record ; it could simply say that the
appellant had not urged anything to show that the judgment
and decree under appeal were wrong.
·
-
. Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi lzarue, A. I. R. 1921 P. C. 55.
rehed on.
·
Mathur11 Das v. Narain Das, I. L. R. 1940 All. 220, ·
approved.
llJrJB
Bfrla Couon Spg. &:
W·vg. Mi1ls
••
Woikmen'
Wtinchoo J.
1B61
M•:! B.