LexHINDUSTAN HOSIERY INDUSTRIES versus F. H. LALA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HINDUSTAN
HOSI~'RY INDUSTRIES
v.
F. H. LALA AND ANOTHER
Febmary 8, I974
[S. N. DWIVEDI AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
Bo111b.ay [ndustrial -Rf!lations Act, 1946-:-w'orkmen's de1nand for rew.wnn
of basic wages and dearness allowance of timt-rated and pitct-ratcd workers
with retrospectil'f' eflect-Co11ct>pts of 111'11!rnun1 wage, fair wage, and livl"g wnJ:e.
Principles of wage fixation.
A
B
Co11s!itutio11 of /f1dai .A rt. 136-Practice-Principlts go1•erni11g interference
C
with awards of Industrial Tribunals-Power not to ht exercised so as (o co111·ert
Suprcnie Court into a court of appeal.
On a demand by the ·Mill Mazdoor Sabha for the revision of basic wages
for time-rated and piece-rated
workers and for
the rev1s1on
of dearness
nllowance, reference was made to the Industrial Court Maharashtra u/s 73-A
of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Court follnd that on the face of
it, the wages provided for the work.men of the factory were inadequate and low
and i;ven in a loss-making concern, such wages have to b! raised: The Court
further held that although the business was started by the appellant in 1967,
it had earned profits of Rs. 1,51,000/- in· 8 months of 1967 with a capital of
Rs. 2,28,000/-. The appellant Company also earned profits of Rs. 1,88,000/-
on the capital of Rs. 3,42,000/- in 1~68. The Court, therefore, held that the
appellant-company was prosperous and its financial position was sound so as
to tak:e the burden of the revision of pay scitles and dearness allowance.
The
J ndustrial Court fixed the minimum Wages at Rs. S /- and fixed bigher wa~cs in
a graded ntanner to the maximum. of Rs .. 8.SO per day.' The Tribunal also
granted for every rise of 10 _points or part thereof, above the index bracket
621-630, dearness allowance @ lOP per day.
The wages of the
piece-rated
workers were raised by 30 per cent.
D
E
On appeal by special leave to this Court, the ap~llant raised the following
contentions : (i) the Tribunal erred in ignoring the difference between ntinimum
wage and fair wage; it was in- fact granting fair wage .and did not take into
account the well-settled relevant factors in making the award; (ii) the tribunal
absolutely ignored the aspect of the capacity of the appellant to bear the burden
of the additional rise in -wages on account of the award; (iii) there is no justi-
F
fication whatsoever for allowing the present increase of wages without following
:1ny piinciple and :ven higher than the statutory minimum waae fixed in respect
of iJther industrits in the state.
fhe Sabha, on the other hand, submitted as follows·: {i) the Tribunal has
awllrdcd only minimum wage; (ii) even if it is assumed that the wage awarded
is a little higher than the minimum: «'age, it is certainly tower than the lowest
level of the fair wage; and (iii) in order to allow the wage increases the Tribunal
had before it materials from· the evidence famished in the Strctchlon A.ward
G
::i.s well as the trend of wage rates with which the ·Tribunal must be ex:pectcd to
be familiar, in the region and in the ind1,1stry.
Dismissine, the appeal,
HELD: (i) From a perusal of the award it is clear that the Tribunal was con~i
dering the case from ~h~ poinf of_ view of .grantina ~omethiog hig_her than ~~c
subsistence or bare m1n1mum wage bordenng on fair waac.
'Ilus conc1us1on
has been reached since th.! yardstick of the present award is the
Stretchlon
H
awai-o which was seeking to determine some kind of fair wage,
[307Cl
(ii) from an ex:ami~ation of lhe decisions of this Court, it is clear that
the floor _level is the bare minimum wage or subsistence wage.
In fix.in~ this
A
B
c
D
E
'F
HINDUSTAN HOSIERY INDUSTRIES v. F. H .• LALA (Goswami, J.) 303
wage: Industrial Tribunals will. ~ave to consider the position from the Point
~f VIC\\'.. of the wo~kcr. 1!1e capacity of the employer to pay s~ch a wage being
irrelevant.
The fair wage also must take note of the economic reality of the
situation and the minimum needs of the working class having a fair sized falilily
with, an eye to the prc!ervation of his efficiency as a work.er. [310D)
Exprtss Newspaptrs (Prii-att) Ltd. and a11other v. Union of India and othtrl
fl9.S9] S.C.R. 12, Mtsser.f. Crown Al1a11itti1u11 Works v. Their Workmen [1958]
S.C."R. 651 quoted in [1953] S.C.R. 12, Kama11i Metals a11d Alloys Ltd. v.
Tl1tir Workmen [1967) 2 S.C.R. 463/467 Hydro Engineers (Pl't.) Ltd. v. Th~r
Work,nu:ri {1969] I L.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.