WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. versus WOOLCOMBERS WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 27-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. 
v 
WOOLCOMBERS WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHJ;R 
August 27, 1973 
[P. JAGANMOHAN, REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.j 
Tndustrial Dispute Act-Wlzat is bare minimum wage and fair wage-Differ~ 
·e11ce-Industry-cum-regio11-forn1ula for fixing basic wages and dearness allowance 
what principle to be followed. 
The West Bengal Government referred an industrial 
dispute 
bet\veen the 
appellants and their workmen to the Jndustrial 'Tribunal for a~iudication. As 
many as 10- points of dispute were referred. The Tribunal gave its Award on all 
the points referred except a part of point No. 1 and point No. 7, which were 
decided against the \vorkmen. 
The workmen were categorised into 4 classes.-
highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled -workmen. ·One part of point 
·No. l relating to the fixation of the basic wage and dearness ailowance of the 
workmen y,·as decided in their favour. The basic wage etc. of the workmen and 
other employees was fixed in an arbitrary manner by the Tribunal. 
Before the Award, all the workmen were getting Dearness Allowances at a 
·fiat rate of Rs. 94.10. The Award had varied the Dearness Allowance also. 
The Tribunal only gave its conclusions but it did not giVe the supporting 
reasons. In appeal before this Court. the Appellant, complained that the ·rri-
bunaJ 
in 
coming 
into 
its 
conclusions. 
did 
noi 
give 
any 
reason. 
The respondents, however, sought to explain away the absence or reasons in the 
Award _by saying that the Tribunal had fixed the bare minimum wage. 
So, no 
reasons were required to be given. Remandinz the case to the Tribunal to record 
a fresh finding on the quantum and the basic wages and Dearness Allov.'ance by 
applying the region part of the Industry-cu1n-Region Formula etc., 
HELD : (1) The judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial 
jurisdiction should give their reasons in support of their conclusions because of 
·the following reasons : 
(a~ It is ca'lculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in 
·reaching the conclusions. 
(b) It is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but 
should also appear to have been done. In a sense, the conclusions may be just, 
but they may not appear to be just to those who read them; and 
( c) That from an appeal to this Court under Art. 136, if the lower courts do 
not give reasons for their conclusions, it will be of Httle assistance to this Court 
. to come to· a correct decision. The Court will have to wade through the entire 
record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or Y/rong. 
In 
·many cases, this investment of time \and industry will be saved if reasons are given 
in support of the condusion5. [507CJ 
(ii) The Tribunal has not fixed the bare minimum. wage of the \vorkmen 
·as emphasised by the respondent. 
The bare minimum wage. as pointed .. out in 
Ka1n<11ii Metals & Allovs v. Their Workn1e11, [19671 2 L.L.J. 55 must tie paid by 
an employer in spite of want of financial capacity. 
The bare minimum '"'age is 
"the lowest little below which wages caanot be ailowed to sink in all humanity." 
In the written statement, the workers did not ask, for the bare minimum wage. 
"They were claiming a basic fair \vage and not bare minimum wage. 
[508G] 
(iii) Further, the re'ferring order of the West Bengal Government did not ask 
the Tribunal to fix the bare minimum wage and the Tribunal had admittedly 
·considered the financial capacity {Jf the Appellants -while fixing the bare minimum 
-wage. Therefore, what the Tribunal was doing was fixing not the bare minimum 
-wage, but a basic fair wage. 
[SlOB-C] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
WOOLCOMBERS INDIA LTD. \'. WORKERS UNION (Dll'ivedi, /.) 
505' 
tiv) For fixing basic wages and Dearness Allowance, industrial adjudicatic 
sometimes leans on the industry part of the industry-cuni-region formula and o 
other times, on the region part of the formula. The industry part of the formula 
becomes relevant when the business carried on by the employers before the indus~ 
trial adjudication is also carri~d on by several other concerns in the region in. 
\Vhich the employer is working. 
In the present, case, the appellants being the 
only concern in the region. the industry part of the forrrula is not applicable. 
[5 IOGl 
Gn·are.s Colton &: Co. and Ors. '" 
Their Work1n~n. [19461 S. S.C.R. 362,. 
referred to. 
Therefore, the present case is governed by- the region part of the industr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.