# WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD v. THEIR WORKMEN . (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO

- **Citation:** [1964] 3 S.C.R. 560
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-10-23
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/western-india-match-co-ltd-v-their-workmen-p-b-gajendragadkar-k-n-wanohoo-3006
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

1968
R-.uh•ar Praatl
••
M/1. Shyom B1hori/a/
l•:annatli
Ratiub.,
J.
/9f, J
Moy3.
SUPREltfE COURT REPORTS [1964] VC>i,
abated as all the appellants had a common right
and interest in getting a decree of ejectment against
defendant No. 2 and such decree cmdd have been
on a ground common to all of them.
The defendant cannot be ejected from the premises when he
has a right to remain in occupation of the premises
on the basis of the decree holding that Kedar Nath,
one of the persons having a joint interest in letting
out the property could not have ejected him. It is
not possible for the defendant to continue as tenant
of one of the landlords and not as a tenant of the
others when all of them had a joint right to eject
him or to have him as their tenant.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
---
WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD.
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO,
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Industrial Displlie-Production
bonus
scheme-Made
applicable onlv to workmen in factory-Olaim by workmen of
sales office-Sales office and factory whether part of same unit of
industrial production-Inspectors, salesmen and retail salesmen,
whether workmen-U. P. Industrial DiBputes Act, 1947 (U.P.
28 of 1947).
The appellant company was engaged in the manufacture
and sale of matches in four places in India, including Bareilly,
in which there were factories as well as sales offices. As an
ince'Dtive to larger production of matches the company introduced In 1945 a Production Bonus Scheme which was made
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
561
applicable to workmen engaged in the factory in making
matches as also to those working in the factory office. In 1947,
it was withdrawn in hs application to the sales office. The
workmen of th• sales office consisting of clerical staff' as also
salesmen and ins]>"ctors of salesmen made a claim to Production bonus p.;intinir out that there should be no discrimination
between the employees in the same company. The company
resisted the claim on the grounds : (I) that the sales office
was entirely independent of the factory, and (2) that the salesmen, retail salesmen and inspectors employed by the sales office
were not workmen within the meaning of the U.P.
Disputes Act, 1947. The facts showed: (I) that there was
interdependence of the two activities viz., manufacture of
matches in the factory and their <ale by the sales office, inasmuch as (a) the sales office could not exist without the factory,
(bl the factory itself could not conveniently function without a
sales
and (c) the factory arranged its volume of
production in accordance with ·the programme made from
time to time by the sales manager; (2) that the sales office and
the factory had the same banking account, though separate
cheque books were maintained and operated upon ; (3) that
the financial forecasts that were made for the Bareilly branch
from time to time made no distinction between the disbursements in the sales office and the factory ; (4) the rules and
practice in connection with the recruitment, control and discipliae of man-power, as also documents, including letters of
appointment and standing orders and the muster rolls were
kept distinct and separate between the factory and the sales
office; and (5) the sales office paid rent to the factory flr the
area occupied hy it by means of book adjustments. The evidence also showed that 75% of the time of the workmen in the
sales office was devoted to writing work.
Held that, on the facts, there was functional integrality
and inter-dependence or community of financial control and
manae;ement of the sales oft ice and the factory in the appellant
company and that the two must be considered part of one and
the same unit of industrial production.
Held further, that the inspectors, salesmen and retail
salesmen were workmen as defined in the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.

## Text

1968
R-.uh•ar Praatl
••
M/1. Shyom B1hori/a/
l•:annatli
Ratiub.,
J.
/9f, J
Moy3.
SUPREltfE COURT REPORTS [1964] VC>i,
abated as all the appellants had a common right
and interest in getting a decree of ejectment against
defendant No. 2 and such decree cmdd have been
on a ground common to all of them.
The defendant cannot be ejected from the premises when he
has a right to remain in occupation of the premises
on the basis of the decree holding that Kedar Nath,
one of the persons having a joint interest in letting
out the property could not have ejected him. It is
not possible for the defendant to continue as tenant
of one of the landlords and not as a tenant of the
others when all of them had a joint right to eject
him or to have him as their tenant.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
---
WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD.
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO,
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Industrial Displlie-Production
bonus
scheme-Made
applicable onlv to workmen in factory-Olaim by workmen of
sales office-Sales office and factory whether part of same unit of
industrial production-Inspectors, salesmen and retail salesmen,
whether workmen-U. P. Industrial DiBputes Act, 1947 (U.P.
28 of 1947).
The appellant company was engaged in the manufacture
and sale of matches in four places in India, including Bareilly,
in which there were factories as well as sales offices. As an
ince'Dtive to larger production of matches the company introduced In 1945 a Production Bonus Scheme which was made
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
561
applicable to workmen engaged in the factory in making
matches as also to those working in the factory office. In 1947,
it was withdrawn in hs application to the sales office. The
workmen of th• sales office consisting of clerical staff' as also
salesmen and ins]>"ctors of salesmen made a claim to Production bonus p.;intinir out that there should be no discrimination
between the employees in the same company. The company
resisted the claim on the grounds : (I) that the sales office
was entirely independent of the factory, and (2) that the salesmen, retail salesmen and inspectors employed by the sales office
were not workmen within the meaning of the U.P.
Disputes Act, 1947. The facts showed: (I) that there was
interdependence of the two activities viz., manufacture of
matches in the factory and their <ale by the sales office, inasmuch as (a) the sales office could not exist without the factory,
(bl the factory itself could not conveniently function without a
sales
and (c) the factory arranged its volume of
production in accordance with ·the programme made from
time to time by the sales manager; (2) that the sales office and
the factory had the same banking account, though separate
cheque books were maintained and operated upon ; (3) that
the financial forecasts that were made for the Bareilly branch
from time to time made no distinction between the disbursements in the sales office and the factory ; (4) the rules and
practice in connection with the recruitment, control and discipliae of man-power, as also documents, including letters of
appointment and standing orders and the muster rolls were
kept distinct and separate between the factory and the sales
office; and (5) the sales office paid rent to the factory flr the
area occupied hy it by means of book adjustments. The evidence also showed that 75% of the time of the workmen in the
sales office was devoted to writing work.
Held that, on the facts, there was functional integrality
and inter-dependence or community of financial control and
manae;ement of the sales oft ice and the factory in the appellant
company and that the two must be considered part of one and
the same unit of industrial production.
Held further, that the inspectors, salesmen and retail
salesmen were workmen as defined in the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 301)-301 of 1963 •
•
195J
W11t1m WM
Maf<h Co , l.J,.
v.
Tfllit W"km••
/963
Wullm India
M•tdl Co., Ltd.
••
Their Workmen
562
SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
Appeals by special leave from the award dated
October 23, 1962 of the Industrial Tribunal (III),
Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 33 of 1961.
G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadaohanji, 0. O. Mathur and
Ravinder Narain, for the appellant in C.A. No. 300
of 1963 and the respondent in C.A. No. 301 of 1963.
0. B. Agarwala, O. P. Lal and G. 0. Mathur,
for the respondents in C.A. No. 300 of 1963 and the
appellants in C.A. No. 301 of 19,63.
. 1963. May 3. The Judg.ment of the Court was
delivered by
Das Gupta J.
DAS GUPTA J.-The Western India
Match
Company; the Bareilly Branch of which is the
appellant in the first of the two appeals before us,
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of matches
in India. The manufacture of matches is carried on
by the company at its four factories at Ambernath,
Madras, Calcutta and Clutterbuckgunj m Bareilly.
At these four places the company has also four sales
offices catering to the needs of the regions assigned
to them. The sales office at Clutterbuckganj with
which we are concerned in this appeal carries on its
sales activities in the States of U.P., Punjab, Delhi,
Himachal Pradesh, a part· of Rajasthan and a part
. of ·Madhya Pradesh.
According to the appellant
, each of these sales offices
is independent of the
. factories of their respective regions and so the
i Bareilly Sales Office is quite independent of the
t factory at Bareilly. As an incentive to larger
production of matches the company introduced in
.1945 a Production Bonus Scheme the details of
which will be mentioned later. The scheme was
applied at the beginning not only to the 1500 workmen engaged in the factory in making matches but
also to the workmen working in the factory office,
who numbered about 100. In 1947, the production
bonus was withdrawn from the office staff of the
factory, though it continued to operate as regards
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
563
the -other'- workmen. -.- The . factory office staff raised,
'·i95J
a dispute on this question in 1957 and ultimately
'w,;;;;;-r,.&
as a result of a decision of the Adjudicator given_ on
-1-farch 13 _ 1958, the factory office stajf also became -•·'nwW•••'"'•
entitled to the· bmefits of the production'•- bonils - ;,;;,.;:,1;1.
_ schem-: on the same terms as the other workmen in
-the ra·c1ory. - The workmen -of the sales office con·
sistin'g of the -clerical staff as also salesmen and
'inspectors -of salesmen were however - denied'
the -
-- benefits or the
though it does ·appear that
for a very -short period iu 1946 the saks office staff
_ al;o re..:eived _payments purporting to be prooucticin
bonus. The Adjudicator's _ decision extending the ·
production bonus scheine __ to the , factory_ staff was .
confirmed by -this Court on March 17; 1961. It _
-
that ?uring, th(! .Pe1?dency in this Col!1't.
_the appeal agamst the Adjud1cator's'order there was
.some discussion' between the Unioii-cifwhich 'die
,. sales office staff became. members iri'l957 or
-
'about-and - the sales manager at Bareilly; in i:egard
to_ extending ihe Production Bonus Scheme -to die
members of the sales staff, if theappeal in this Court
: was decided in·_ favour of the factory -office staff.
-On !\larch 13, 1961, the Union·wrote to the' ·sales
manager. reiterating the claim tci Production bonus
_ and pointing out -that .,"discrimination between· the
' employees of the same company -in the matter ·or -
admissibilitv of item of wage was· bound to lead to
: .
.The manager replied' cin :May'22,
_ -llJ61, charaderizing · this demand of the· sales office
_ st'aff as. unreasonable to which the management
, could :not agree. -Ultimately, on August 18, '1961, -
.the dispute. which 'thus arose between the employers
, ·and_ the workmen -was referred by the Government -
-'ofU. P; to the Third Industrial Tribunal at Allahabad for adjudication. The
dispute referred __ was
, described in these words:-.
--
- ·
'
. i
·-
.
"
.
"Should.- the employers:
required -to_ -p_ay
produ\;tioμ -bon11s to the workmen employed
··--· •.
...
J"·:·;'= .•• -
,.
1,
196$
· ··W111m l•tli•
, M.tt:li Co. Ltd.
y,
· Thtlr Wo•.bwn
Du ...,,,. I.
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
· in their sales office ? If so, with effect from
what date and with what other details ?".
By a later amendment on December 4, 1961,
the word "in" was substituted by the word "by".
Though a number of matters were raised in
issue, both the parties rightly concentrated at the
hearing on the question whether the sales office and
the factory were independent' units of production or
formed integral parts of one and the same unit of
indu•trial production. Whether or not an incentive
scheme for better production should be introduced in
any industry is esqrntiallv a matter foF the manage·
rrient to decide. This position has been recognised by
this C011rt in Tit.aghur Paper M1"lls Company Lid., v
Their Workmen 11). and again in Rurn & Co., v. Their
Workmen ('). While in view of the importance of
'industrial adjudication not interfering with what is
purely mana!!'ement functions, the Court felt that
industrial adjudication
should
not impose an
incentive bonus on the management for the first
time. the Court pointed out that the position would
be different where an incentive bonus is alrrady in
force for the majoritv of the workmen. "We can
see no reason", we said in Burn Comprmy's CaRe ('),
"why where an. incentive bonus scheme is in force
in a concern for the maiority of its workmen, the
Tribunal should not be able to extrnd the same to
the remainder of the workmen." In virw of this
the appellant in this case tried to establish the fact
that the sales office was entirely independent of the
factory, while the workmen, on the other hand,
directed their efforts to showi·ng that these are only
two departments of the one and the same unit of
production .
. Another auestion on which the partil's joined
issue was whether Inspectors, Salesmen and Retail
Salesmen out of the sales office staff were workmen
(1) (1959) Supp. 2
1012.
(2) (1969) 3 8.C.R. 423.
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
565
or not within the meaning of the U. P. Industrial
disputes Act. The management contended that they
were not workmen and so were not within the terms
of reference; the respondents claimed that they were
workmen within the meaning of the Act.
Applying the principles laid down by this
Court in several cases where the question whether
two or more units of business under the same owner·
ship form one industrial unit or more to the facts
and circumstances of this case as disclosed by the
oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the sales office and the factory
form one single unit of industry and there being no
reason for· making any discrimination against the
sales office staff on
question of
bonus
held that the employers should . be requ1red to pay
production bonus to the workmen employed by their
sales office also. The Tribunal directed that the
sales office staff should be paid production bonus
at the same rate at which it was given to the
workmen of the factory and the factory office. The
question whether inspectors, salesmen and retail
salesmen employed by the sales office were workmen
was also answered by the Tribunal in the affirmative
so that they also became entitled to the benefit of
the award. Being of opinion that the dispute should
have been raised earlier by the workmen of the sales
office, the Tribunal directed that the payment of
production bonus to the sales office staff would start
from the date the award became enforceable in law.
Against this decision the employers, the Western
India Match Co., Ltd., Bareilly, has appealed by
special leave granted by this Court. The . workmen
have alsp appealed against the direction that the pay·
ment of production bonus should start from the date
the award became enforceable in law.
Three points have been, raised before .us .on
behalf of the employers in support of their appeal,
J96J.
We;11r11 /11tltt1'
M•l<h C•, Ll4• .
••
TMir Wor.l,,.,.
Du Go;t• /.
mJ ..
-
.
w..,,,,, lndlii
Malt/I C. , Ltd.
·,
TMir WMkmlO.\
.DIS Gopla ./.
566 SUPMNm COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
which has been numbered Civil ·Appeal No. 300 of
1963. The first and the main contention is that the
Tribunal has erred in holding that the sales office
and the factory formed parts of one and the same
unit of industrial production.
In any case, it was
next urged, the Tribunal ought not to have extended
to the sales office staff the producrion ·bonus scheme
for the factory and the factory office without any
modijication. Thirdly, it was contended that the
Tribunal was wrong in holding that Inspectors,
Salesmen and Retail Salesmen are workmen within
the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
· ··
This last contention can be disposed of easily.
"Workman" has been defined in the U. P. Industrial
disputes Act to mean any person emplo1 ed in an
industry to do any manual, supervisory, technical or
clerical work for hire or reward.
The Tribunal has
'accepted the evidence of the workmen's witness
Scxena that the writing work takes up 75%· of the
time of these categories of the sales staff.
Mr. Pai
has characterized this finding as arbitrary.
We do
not think this criticism is justified,
The . manage·
ment did not file any document to show the list of
duties of these persons but contented itself with filing
an affidavit that no certified duty list of inspectors,
salesmen and retail salesmen has b.een circulated for
travelling letters by the employers.
A statement of
duties of the salesmen and retail salesmen was filed
on behalf of the workmen and was marked Ex. W. 61.
The correctness of what is stated in this document
has not been challenged by the management. On a
consideration of the statement of duties as detailed
in this document along with the oral testimony of the
workmen's witnesses, we· are of opinion that the
Tribunal cannot be said to have acted unreasonably
or arbitrarily in believing that 75% of the time of
these categories of workmen is dcveited to writing
work. It is not out of place to mention in this connectian that OD llome previous occasions the management
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
567
itself has treated these categories as workmen within the meaning of the U. P. Industrial Disputes
Act. The management's contention that the Tribunal has erred in. thinking that the inspectors, salesman and retail salesmen are workmen must therefore
be rejected,
A more difficult question is whether the sales
office and the factory form part of one and the same
unit of industrial production or are independent of
each other. It will be useful to clear the ground
first of the confused notion which is expressed in
para. 8 of the Company's written statement that the
employees of the Sales office have nothing to do with
"production". · It does not require an economist to
tell· us that just as the man who tills the soil, and
grows the crop is engaged in producing wealth for
the community, so also is
the
person
who
reaps the harvest, the person who transports
it from the field to a place of storage and the people
who ar-.
,;aged in completing the process by bringing it tu tne ultimate consumer. It is equally trite
that just as a man who makes an article, be it bricks
or steel or boxes or something else-by using different
materials in such a way as to make them more suitable to satisfy people's wants is engaged in productive
labour, so also is the person or persons who help in
the ultimate achievement of satisfaction of those
wants by . bringing them to the consumer's reach.
Therefore, it would be unreasonable to say that
though those who make the matches are "producing".
but those who sell them are not.
Once this misapprehension is cleared we are
face to face with the centre of the problem. The
principles to be followed in deciding these problems
have so often been considered by this Court and the
tests that can be applied to assist their solution have
so frequently been laid down that further detailed
diac1111ion i1 wincceuary.
It is enough to mention
IHI
WeJt11n lndi•
Match C.., Ltd.
v.
Thnr Workmen
Du Gu;" I.
196!
Westm lntlit1
Makh Co., Ltd.
v.
Tluit W orkmm
Du Gull• J.
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL.
that among the many tests that have been evolved,
functional integrality, inter-dependence or community
of financial control and management; community of
man-power and of its control, recruitment and
discipline, the manner in which the employer has
organised the different activities, whether he has
treated them as independent of one another or as
inter-connected and inter-dependent, enjoy pride of
place .. But this liat is by no means exhaustive.
Nor can the tests and the principles that have
been laid down be applied mechanically or by way
of syllogism. A mechanical or syllogistic approach
may appear to furnish the easiest way of solving a
complicated problem, but the allurement of the
easy way has to be resisted. For, while such ways
are beset with risks of error in all branches of law,
they are even more unsafe and inexpedient in industrial law, where sensitive problems of human relations have to be solved in the midst of all the complexities of modern industrial organisation. That
is why in applying the well settled tests and principles on these problems we have to bear in mind that
w bile all tests that are possible of application should
be applied, the value and importance to be attached
to individual tests will vary according to the nature of
the industrial activities and according to the nature
of the disputes in which the problem has arisen, viz.,
whether it is in respect of lay off, retrenchment,
production bonus, profit bonus or something else.
Again, as in most questions which come before
the courts, it is the substance which matters and not
the form; and every fact and circumstance relevant
to the ascertainment of the substance deserve care.
ful attention.
In the first place, functional integrality is writ
large on the activities under consideration • ._.Thi:
sales office cannot exist without the factory.· 'Wllile
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
569.
it is true that the sales office does from time to time
handle the production of a sister concern of the com·
pany, the Assam Company, by far the largest portion
of its activities is devoted to the marketing of what
is made at the Bareilly factory and to a certain extent
of the products of the Western India Matcli Com·
pany. It is equally clear that the factory itself can·
not conveniently function without a sales organiza· .
tion. The inter-dependence of the two activ1tiesthe manufacture of matches in the factory and their
sale by the sales office-is further emphasized by the
fact that the factory arranges its volume of produc·
tion in accordance with the programmes made from
time to time by the sales manager.
Turning now to the question of finance, we
find that the sales office al)d the factory have the
same banking account, though separate cheque books
are maintained ·and operated upon. Even more
important is the fact that the financial forecasts that
are made for this Branch from time to time make no
distinction between the disbursements in the sales
office and the factory. This is clear from the fore·
cast for the period October-December 1961, Ex. W .27.
This forecast was prepared by the sales manager and
bears the heading "Bareilly Sales Office". Under
the head "Cash Disbursements" we find first some
figures in respect of bonus, woods, splints, raw-mate·
rials and general stores and then one inclusive item
for salaries and wages
for both factory
and
sales office. This document discloses the further in· .
teresting fact that excise duty-a duty on the produc•
tion of matches-also finds place in the financial fore·
cast, prepared by the sales manager for the sales
office.
The manner in which the financial forecast
was prepared by the sales manager in respect of
functions. not only of the sales office . but also of
the factory
is e'loquent iestimon{ "that tli'e
W1st1rn lniia
M•t.<h Co., Lid.
••
n,;, Wortnua
Das GllPI• J,
J9t'JJ.
W uurn India
M.ieli C•., Ltd •
••
Thlir Wcirkmtn
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
company did consider them as inter-dependent parts
of the same production unit.
'
Against all this, Mr. Pai seeks support for his
contention that the sales office is independent of the
factory, mainly in the rules and practice in connec·
tion with the recruitment, control and discipline of
man-power. The document,s, including letters of
appointment and standing orders; which have been
produc;ed undoubtedly show that the company has
. kept these matters distinct and separate between the
factory and the sales office.
It is also clear that
separate muster rolls are maintained for the factory
and the .sales office, though it must be pointed out
that a few workmen are common.
Our attention has been drawn also to the fact
that the sales office pays rent to the factory for the
area occupied by it by means of book adjustments.
These and some other details to which our attention
has been drawn by Mr. ·Pai are of little assistance
however to
establish his proposition that the
Tribunal has acted arbitrarily in deciding that the
sales office and the factory are parts of one and the
same industrial unit.
We have to mention here that our purpose in
referring to these details of evidence is not to find
out whether the Tribunal has come to a wrong
conclusion on fact, but only to see if it has made
any mistake in applying the correct principles or has
come to a conclusion that is unreasonable, arbitrary
or perverse. On . an analysis of the materials on-the
record we are clearly of opinion that the correct
principles have been applied in a fair and reasonable
manner and the conclusion reached cannot be challenged before us .
There remains for consideration Mr. Pai's
CGDtelltioa that d1.e Tribunal was not justified in
3 S.C.R.
SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS
571
extending to the sales office staff the production
bonus for the factory and the factory office without
any modification. Mr. Pai complains that having come
to the conclusion that production bonns should be
extended to the sales office staff the Tribunal did
not a pp! y its mind to the further question that was
referred to it, viz., with what details the prod11ction
bouus scheme
be applied to the sales office
staff.
According to Mr. Pai the sales office staff,
speaking generally, enjoys much higher rates of pay
than the corresponding categories in the factory
office and that this was a factor which ought to be
taken into consideration in deciding whether the
production bonus scheme in force in the factory for
the factory staff should be applied to the sales office
staff without any modification. If it were clear.
that the Tribunal had applied its mind to this aspect
of the problem we would not have felt justified in
upholding Mr. Pai's complaint.
As it appears
however that this aspect was not considered, we
think it will be in ·the best interests of industrial
peace and of social justice that the Tribunal
applies its mind to the question and then comes to
a decision.
• We express no opinion whether Mr. Pai's contention that the sales office staff enjoys higher pay
scales than the. factory staff is correct in fact or
not, nor on the question whether if this assertion be
found to be correct any modification in the produc·
tion bonus scheme would be called for.
We confirm the Tribunal's decision that the
production bonus scheme should be extended to the
sales office staff and remand the case to the Tribunal
for decision after taking note of all relevant facts
whether the production bonus scheme in force in the
factory and the factory staff should be extended to
the sales office staff with or '\\'ithout modification.
1963
W1stmt india
Match Co, Ltd.
.
v.
1 heir Pllo1kmeM ·
Dos Gupta J.
1963
W1st1rn Indio
M.udo C 1, Lid,
•
1htir Workm111
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
This disposes of the management's appeal. viz.,
Civil Appeal No. 300 of 1963.
· The workmen's appeal which is numbered
Civil Appeal No. 301 of 1963 challenges the correct·
ness of the Tribunal's direction that the payment
of production bonus should start from the date the
award became enforceable in law. According to the
workmen the payment or production bonus . should
have been directed to be made with effect from the
of reference, if not from the date of the demand.
The question as to the date from which the
benefit granted by an award should take effect must
· generally be left to the discretion of the Tribunal
making the award and this Court ordinarily refuses
to interfere with the exercise of that discretion. We
are unable to find any special circumstances in this
case that would justify any departure from our
established practice.
The ApPeal No. 301 of 1963 is therefore
dismissed. In view of the fact that the case is going
back to the Tribunal for a decision of the question
as mentioned above, we think it proper to direct
that the ultimate award by the Tribunal should
be given effect from the same date from which the
award now under appeal would have come into
force.
There will be no order as to costs in either
of the appeals.
•Appeal No. 300 remanded.
Appeal No. 301 diBmiaaed.
--