FRENCH MOTOR CAR CO., LIMITED versus WORKMEN

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 13-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1912 
Vir•PtJJ<•PP• 
Yur•P/NJ fi.idompur 
v. 
1 lu Sl•f1 of My1or1 
Das GufJta, .f. 
1962 
Jt/nrtmbtr, 13. 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
"in any case of alleged offences" used words like "in 
any case of offences against this Act." It appears 
clear that the lei(islature deliberately gave the pro· 
tection of s. 16 I ( l) to offences against any law and 
there is no justification for our limiting that pro. 
tection to offences under the Police Act only. 
It 
must accordingly be held that the prosecution against 
the appellant should have been 'dismissed in accord-
ance with the provisions of s. Ill! ( l) of the Bombay 
Police Act. 
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the 
order of conviction anrl sentence passed against the 
' 
appellant and order that the case against him be 
dismissed. 
Appeal allmnd. 
FRENCH MOTOR CAR CO., LIMITED 
v. 
WORKMEN 
(P. B. GA.TRNDRAG.\DKAR, A. K. SARKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
lnd,1181rial 
Di8pule-Fi.ration of wage sca/c-lnduslrJ• 
C'U:1'n-rcgion baRis-Applica.tion-l .11 rge and rl-is.1Jimilar concerns, 
1'f and ?f'lten can br tal.·en. for co1npari«1an-.-tr{ju.r.:tment-Pml'er 
of Trlbu,nal. 
'l'he three matters canvassed in this appeal from an award 
of the Industrial Tribunal related to ( 1) wa'<es and scales of 
pay for clerical staff, (2) dearness allowance for clerical staff· 
and (3) provident fund. The Tribunal found that the business 
of the appellant company was able to bear the burden it im· 
posed. The Tribunal also went into the history of the company 
and found there had been several revision of wage scales and 
dearness allowance in the recent past, but since there had been a 
larl!" increase in the cost of living index for workmen from 1955 
' 
' 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
17 
the dearness allowance had been reduced in 1954 by agreement, 
it held that a case of further revision of wage-scales had been 
made out. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that wages 
s~ould 
be fixed 
on industry-cum-region basis and the 
Tribunal was in errr1r in taking for comparision industrial 
concerns which w<>re entirely dissimilar to the appellant's and 
that since it was paying the highest scale of wages in the in-
dustry concerned, there could be no justification for increasing 
the wages. 
Held, tl,at it is well settled that in considering questions 
of \vagc structure, dearness allo\-\·ance and similar conditions of 
service, an industrial court has to proceed on industry·cum· 
region b~sis and compare similar concerns in the region which 
wou Id be those in the same line of business as the concern in 
cl ispute. But such comparison must not be between a small 
struggling concern and a large flourishing one. 
Williamson• (India) Private Ltd. v. The Workmen, (1962) 
IL. L.J. 302 and Novex Dry Cleanersv. Workmen, (1952) I 
L.L.J. 271, referred to. 
Since in fixing of wage scales for workshop employees, 
the Tribunal took into consideration concerns much larger than 
the appellant's and not in the sarne line of business, the award 
to the extent it was thus affected could not be upheld. Although 
the appellants were paying the highest wages in the particular 
line of business, that could he no ground for not revisin~ the 
scales having regard to the econo1nic conditions prevailing at 
the time of the dispute ; in such a case the greater emphasis 
should be on the region part of the industry-cum-region 
principle ; but the industrial court n1ust see that the industrial 
concerns tak4fn into account for purposes of comparison are as 
nearly similar to the concern before it is possible. 
Although the Tribunal was justified in looking to other 
concerns in the region for purposes of comparison, it should 
not have taken such concerns for comparison as were dispropor· 
tionately large and absolutely dissimilar from the appellant's. 
The wage structure fixed for the workshop employees must 
therefore be set aside. The same rule cannot, however, apply 
to clerical and subordinate staff \vho stand on a different footing 
f10m that of the workshop employees who are skilled workers 
in the pa1 ticular line of business. 
Messrs. 
Lipton Limited v. Their Employees, [1959] Supp. 
2 S. C.R. 150, referred to. 
There is nothing in law to prevent the Tribunal from 
granting adjustment even in cases where previously pay scales 
1962 
French Motor Car 
Co., Ltd. 
v. 
Workm1n 
1962 
Fr1nelt. Afotor Car 
Co, 1 Ltd. 
v. 
Wod:m111 
Wanelioo, J. 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.