The wage structure fixed in a given industry can be revised to the prejudice of workmen in certain circumstances, such as when the employer's financial difficulties are severe and cannot be adequately addressed by retrenchment or when the wage structure falls in a higher category than the bare subsistence or minimum wage.

Judgment

Gajendragadkar, J. - This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant M/S. Crown Aluminium Works, Belur, represented by Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., and its Workmen represented by Bengal Aluminium Workers Union. By their order dated July 31, 1952, the Government of West Bengal referred thirteen matters for adjudication to Shri S. K. Niyogi who was appointed to constitute the Sixth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned adjudicator considered the pleas raised, and the evidence led, by the parties before him, investigated into the financial position of the appellant and pronounced his award on October 9, 1953, on all matters referred to him. Both parties were aggrieved by the award and that led to two cross appeals.

On July 11, 1955, the Labour Appellate Tribunal disposed of these appeals by a consolidated order. The workmen appear to be satisfied with this order but the appellant is not and so the present appeal. The main grievance which Mr. Sen has made before us on behalf of the appellant is in respect of the revision made by the Appellate Tribunal in the wage structure which was constituted by the original tribunal. Thus, the controversy between the parties in the present appeal lies within a very narrow compass; nevertheless, it would be necessary to mention the history of the dispute in some detail in order to appreciate properly the points at issue between them.

2. It appears that in 1947 the first Omnibus Engineering Tribunal was constituted to adjudicate upon the industrial disputes for the engineering industry in West Bengal and the matters referred to the tribunal included inter alia disputes in regard to basic wages, dearness allowance and leave. This tribunal gave a comprehensive award which was published on June 30, 1948. The appellant was a party to these adjudication proceedings and was governed by the said award. Soon thereafter industrial disputes again arose between the engineering industry and its employees and these were referred to another tribunal which in due course examined the disputes and pronounced its award.

This award was published on September 21, 1950. By this award the dearness allowance fixed by the first tribunal was increased on the ground of rise in the cost of living index and the leave rules prescribed by the earlier award were modified in the light of the provisions of the Indian Factories Act, 1948. After the first award had come into force the appellant revised its facility bonus from time to time with the object of keeping pace with the rise in the cost of living index. The result was that several components which constituted the wages structure paid by the appellant to its workmen left no cause for grievance to the workmen.

So they did not raise any dispute for increase in their dearness allowance and the appellant and its workmen were not parties to the second arbitration proceedings. Meanwhile, a minor industrial dispute arose between the appellant and its workmen and it was referred to the arbitration of Shri G. Palit by the Government of West Bengal by their order dated November 24, 1950. One of the points referred to the tribunal was in regard to the amount of increment which should be granted to workers in 1950 and the date from which it should be so granted.

The appellant denied its liability to pay the increment on the ground that there was no wage structure which permitted such a claim. The appellant also urged before Shri Palit that its workers were on the whole handsomely remunerated. In this connection reliance was placed by the appellant on the payments made by the appellant to its workmen by way of special allowance and bonus, besides dearness allowance and standard wages. It would thus appear that the appellant resisted the claim of its workmen for the increment in wages on the ground that in the wage structure of the appellant additional components had been introduced which m