THE MANAGEMENT OF PRAGA INDUSTRIES LTD., COIMBATORE versus THE WORKERS

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 08-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
161 
view of the company's willingness to take them back. 
The appeal of the workmen on the question of rein-
statment fails and is hereby dismissed. 
We may, 
however, make it clear that payment made pursuant. 
to the order of this Court will not in any event be 
refundable or adjustable towards the future wages 
of those workmen who will be reinstated by the 
company. 
BGth the company and the workmen have raised 
otqer points in their respective grounds of appeal; 
but as they have not been pressed before us we· need 
not say anything \vith respect to them. In these 
circumstances we are of opinion that both the parties 
will bear their own costs of this Court. 
Appeal No. 317 allowed. 
Appeal No. 318 dismissed. 
THE MANAGEMENT OF PRAGA INDUSTRIES 
LTD., COIMBATORE 
v. 
THE WORKERS 
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Award by consent-Interim increment of 
wages in lieu of fixation of wage structure-Such award, if open to 
challenge-Wage structure of piece-rate worlmien-JVhether entitled 
to annual increment-Machinery, land, building on lease-Rehabilita-
tion charges, if allowable-Bonus-Calculation of available siirplus. 
The appellant was the lessee under Praga Industries and 
took on lease buildings and machinery for five years with option 
of renewal. The subject matter of dispute for arljudication was 
with regard to the questions about (1) the quantum of bonus 
payable to the workmen for the year 1954, and (2) fixation of 
scale of wages with graded annual increments for different 
categories of workmen. 
, 
In view of the .fact that the· lease in its favour was due to 
expire shortly, the appellant had suggested to the Tribunal that 
the question of classifying the workmen into skilled and unskilled 
workmen and providing for systematic grades of pay with incre-
ments may conveniently be deferred to a future date; the 
21 
r959 
Shalimar W oYks 
Limited. 
v. 
Their Workmen 
Wanchoo ], 
I9J9 
2'day 8 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)) 
z959 
respondents agreed to this proposal and so both the parties 
represented to the Tribunal that they wouid be satisfied if an 
Tiu .l\Ja1iagc111ent interiln order was n1adc providint;" for the increment in the wages 
of Praga Industries of the \vork111en. Accordingly, tl1e 'fribunal refrained from fixing 
Li11litcd. 
any wage structure, and as an interim measure, ordered increment 
v. 
of wages at 4 per cent. and directed the appellant to grant such 
The lVor!1ers 
an increment every year until the workmen \vere classified and 
their pay scales \Vere introduced to reach a particular maximum. 
Gajendragadkar ]. 
The above increment applied to the monthly, time and piece 
rated workmen. 
• 
The appellant challenged the propriety of the course adopted 
by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal was asked to 
fix a wage structure, but instead it had passed merely·an interim 
order \Vhich \Vas irregular. 
The appellant also contended that the claim for the additional 
bonus for the year 1954 by the workmen was not justified as the 
financial position of the appellant was not satisfactory, and it was 
in debts and had not even paid rent due to the lessor, and in fact, 
had ploughed back the amount of rent due into the business as 
working capital. The appellant also resisted the direction for 
pay1ncnt of bonus on the ground that the award involved an 
unfair distribution of the available surplus and claimed rehabili-
tation charges for the leased property an<l machinery and interest 
on the amount of unpaid rent. 
Held, that \vherc the parties the1nsclvcs represented to the 
Tribunal that the question of classifying respondents into skilled 
and unskilled \vorkrncn and providing for systematic grades of 
pa:y \Vith incrcn1cnts may be conveniently deferred to a future 
date and they \vould be satisfied 'vith a reasonable interim order 
providing for increment in the \\'ages of the \vorkn1en, it \\·as not 
open to the parties to challenge the a\Yard based on such repre-
sentation at a later stage. 
'l'hat although generally a \\'age structure \vith annual 
incrc1ncnts '"·as not provided for piece rate \\·orkcrs, \vho are paid 
for the \VOrk they do, the rate of \vages fixed for such \Yorkers 
couhl ll'gitimatcly he revised on a proper case hcing 1nade out in 
that behalf. 
Held further, that \vhere an amount earmarked as due for 
payn1cnt for so1nc other purpose was utilised as \\·orking capita], 
i

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