LexTHE BIJAY COTTON MILLS LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
February 12 • • 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] THE BIJAY COTTON MILLS LTD. v. THEIR WORKMEN & ANOTHER (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Industrial Dispu.te-Minimu.m basic wage fixed by Tribunal- M odiflcation by Labou.r Appellate Tribunal according to stati/.fory 1 notification isst<cd two years after the award-If valid-Appropriate Govcmmcnt-Industrial Disputes Act, I947• (I4 of I947), Indus- ~ trial (Development and Regulations) Act. I95I (65 of I9JI). s. 2(a)(i). On the refusal of the appellant-employer to fix the mini- rnnn1 wages and rates for contract work of the \Vorkmen-respon- dents who alleged that they were paid below the level of bare subsistance v..1age, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The first Tribunal could not fix any minimu1n basic wage and the a\vard of the second Tribunal which fixed a scale \Vas set aside on the ground that the appointment of the Tribunal was not published according to law. The third Tribunal ultimately fixed the basic minimun1 \vage on the industry-cum-region basis after consider- ing the rates prevalent in various parts of the country and a place nearest to the appellant company. The minimum awarded by the Tribunal was slightly increased by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in accordance \vi th a statutory notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), which had come into force after two years of the award of the Tribunal and by which a scale of minimum wage and dearness allo\vancc was fixed. On appeal by the appellant company by special leave. Held, that the Labonr Appellate Tribunal committed no error of la\v in awarding the same minimum basic wage which '\Vas statutorily fixed and which came into force only two years after •. the award of the Tribunal. , In determining the minimum basic wage the fact that a large ~ amount of dearness allo\vance \Vas paid to the employees in other J A comparable occupations in the same region should not be ignored. In order that the Central Government might itself become the appropriate Government within the meaning of s. 2(a)(i) of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, (65 of 1951) it must specify in that behalf that the industry in question was a controlled industry. If the services of one Tribunal were not available to the appropriate ,.Government it vvas perfectly competent to that Government to appoint another Tribunal to take up the work of acljudication. CIVIL APPELLATE ,JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 355 ofl958. Appeal by special leave from the decision dated Ill December 12, 1956 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal 11111 .. 't' • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 983 of India, Bombay in Appeal (Born.) Nos. 77 and 103 . B. C. Mills Ltd. A. V. Viswa,natha Sastri, S. N. Andley, J. B. of 1956. v. Dadachanji and Rcv;neshwar Nath for the appellant. Their Work»?Pn B. D. Sharma, for respondent No. I. 1960. February, 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDR~GADKAR, J.~The industrial dispute bet- Gajendragadkar f. ween the Bijay Co,tton Mills Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellant) and their workmen (hereinafter called the respondents)' which has given rise to this appeal by special leave has gone through a protracted and tortuous course. The respondents claimed that the scale of minimum wages and rates for contract works should be fixed for them because it was alleged that the payments made by the appellant were below the level of the bare subsistance wage. The appellant did not accede to the demand thus made by the respon- dents, and so on December 1, 1950, the present dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribu! nal consisting of Mr. D. N. Roy, under s. 10(1) read withs. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). ·Amongst the items thus referred for adjudication, the first two were (1) that the mill employees be paid minimum wages and rates. for contract works as shown in the two statements enclosed, and (2) that dearness allow- ance be paid to all workers at the rate of Rs. 35 per mensem each and it may be increased or decreased according to rise or fall in prices. in the present appeal we are concerned with the minimum wages. It appears that Mr. Roy found himself unable to fix any basic minimum wage, and to support his view, that it would be inexpedient to fix any minimum basic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.