LexSHIVRAJ FINE ART LITHO WORKS versus THE STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT, NAGPUR & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
< y .. ---"' ' ,\ . I • • SHIVRAJ FfNE ART LIHIO WORKS v. THE STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT, NAGPUR & ORS February 28, 1978 411 [N. L. UNTWALIA, JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KA!LASAM, JJ.\ lndustria[, Disputes Act, 1947-Powers of the Industrial Tribunal to fix Industrial mininium wage-In the absence, Mininu1m Wage fixed under Minin1un1 Wages Act 11 of 1948 will prevail-Factors to be reckoned f(Jr COHr- puting Fair lf'agc Dcanlf'SS Allolvance etc . An industrial award known as Puranik Award dated 26-10-1956 -f<·hich fixed Rs. 35 /- a5 the minimum \vage in the Litho Industry in the Vidarbha regio• stood terminated with effect from July 22, 1958 as per a notice dated January 22, 1958 from the employees of Litho Industry. Pending the deci!i,ion in tke reference riiade under s. 3 lA of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settle- ment Act, 1947 arising out of the demands of the employees of the Litho IndHstry, an agreement \Vas entered into on February 21, 1966 between the etnployers and the employees of various concerns requesting the State Go\'ern- ment to exercise its po\ver u/s 39 ot the Act and to refer to the arbitration of the State Industrial Court the disputes mentioned in the agreement. By the notification dated 7-1-1965 the Government referred the disputes in respect of the demands of the employees set out in Schedule II to the Notification made against the 10 employers specifically mentioned in Schedule I to the notification, being the employers in the Litho Press Industry in the Vidarbha region. The demands in particular V.'ere to the disputes as to the living v;agc, for fitment of the einptoyees already in service at the date of the demand for revised scales of w;lges with retrospective effect from 1956, :ind for the <lea-mes~ allowance with retrespective efiect from 1959 to be linked with the index nun1ber at the rate of 8 paisc per point with 1956 as 100. The State Government by its nctifi- cation dated Dcce-mber 31, 1964 fixed Rs.- 70/- per month as the minimum wage under the Minimum Wages Act. The notification divided the employees into several classes. It did not attach any scale of pay to the minimum wages fixed but previded that at interval of every six months the State Government may issue a notification fixing certain amounts payable in addition to the mi&im11m wages as special allowances. The Industrial Court made its award on May 10. 1968.- The Award divided the employers into two classes being Class A and Class B on the basi~ of the financial capacity of the employers to pay. The award fixed rate~ and seal~ of wages for the employees of the three employers in Class A being Shivraj Shakti and Vasant Litho Works. The award did not fix any rates and scales of wages in respect of other units of the industry the reason being that they did not have adequate :financial capacity. In the case of Class A the award also fixed the employees of various duration of service by way of fitment into the scales of wages awarded in the award. It also fixed the date from which the new rates and scales of \vages \\'ere to be deemed to have commenced. Against the award six writ petitions were filed before the High Court, three by the appellants in this Court and other three by the employees. The High Court agreed with the view of the Industrial Court and held that the award classifying the employers into two classes A & B on the basis of their paying capacity, determining the rates and scales of wages and the dearaess allowance regarding Class A employees is valid . A. B c E F G The appellants in these appeals by special leave contend that there is no H warrant for the direction by the High Court to the Industrial Court to fix an industrial minimum wage regardless of the paying capacity of the industry or the employer. 4!2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 3 S.C.R. .A Allowing the appeals in part and modifying the order of remand the Court B D E F G H HELD : 1. (a) It is permissible to divide the industry into appropriate classes and then deal with the capacity of the· industry to pay c!Jss-wise. l 418 H, 419 Al Express .iVcwsparers (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. []nfoii of Jndin arid Ors. [1959] S.C.R. 12. followed. (b) The extent of the business carried on by the concerns, the capital invested, the profits made, the nature of the business., their standing, the strength of labour force, the dividends declared and the prospects about the fut
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.