Standardization of wages should be based on the basic principle that where wages are low they should be raised and where they are high they should be lowered.

Headnote:
STANDARDIZATION OF WAGES - BOMBAY STANDARDIZATION SCHEME - APPLICATION TO APPELLANT COMPANY - MODIFICATION OF AWARD - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTIONS 19(2), 19(3), 19(6).
Fact of the Case:

Dispute between appellant company and its workmen regarding standardization of wages. Reference to Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. Award by tribunal directing implementation of Bombay Standardization Scheme of wages in full in appellant-company except engineering department. Appeal by company.
Finding of the Court:

1. Award of Sri Ghanshyamdas did not bar consideration of demands of workmen relating to departments other than engineering. 2. Tribunal erred in holding that wages of workmen getting more than those provided in Bombay Award No. 1 should continue to get higher wages despite standardization. 3. Tribunal erred in rejecting conclusion of Sri Ghanshyamdas that proportion of Bombay prices to Delhi prices was 8:7. 4. Direction of tribunal leaving scope for dispute between parties to be resolved by joint committee was improper.
Issues: 1. Whether award of Sri Ghanshyamdas barred consideration of demands of workmen relating to departments other than engineering? 2. Whether tribunal erred in holding that wages of workmen getting more than those provided in Bombay Award No. 1 should continue to get higher wages despite standardization? 3. Whether tribunal erred in rejecting conclusion of Sri Ghanshyamdas that proportion of Bombay prices to Delhi prices was 8:7? 4. Whether direction of tribunal leaving scope for dispute between parties to be resolved by joint committee was improper?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Award of Sri Ghanshyamdas did not bar consideration of demands of workmen relating to departments other than engineering as it was not a reference to Sri Ghanshyamdas about implementation of Bombay Award No. 1 or general revision of wages so far as departments other than engineering were concerned. 2. Tribunal erred in holding that wages of workmen getting more than those provided in Bombay Award No. 1 should continue to get higher wages despite standardization as it acted against the basic principle of standardization scheme. 3. Tribunal erred in rejecting conclusion of Sri Ghanshyamdas that proportion of Bombay prices to Delhi prices was 8:7 as it did not properly consider the evidence on record. 4. Direction of tribunal leaving scope for dispute between parties to be resolved by joint committee was improper as it left a part of the area of dispute referred to it unresolved.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Award set aside with respect to standardization and tribunal directed to proceed in the manner indicated. Order of tribunal modified as to Chuni Lal, Brij Lal and Durga Prasad. Parties to bear their own costs.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter. There was a dispute between the appellant and its workmen which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. Five items were specified in the reference of which only two not survive in the appeal. They are as follows :-

1. Whether the wages in all time-rated as well as piece-rated occupations need upward revision to bring them to the level of the Bombay Standardization Scheme of wages, and whether the resultant increase may be given any retrospective effect, and if so from what date ?

2. Whether the following workmen in the sizing department should be given the full wage for the Front-sizers for the days they worked as regular Front sizers in the past ;

(i) Sri Durga Prasad,

(ii) Sri Chuni Lal,

(iii) Sri Brij Lal.

2. We may briefly give the history of the disputes between the appellant and its workmen in order that the present dispute may be put in the right perspective. It appears that there were two awards in Bombay relating to fixation of standardized wages. The first award was made in 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as Bombay Award No. 1. It dealt will all categories of workmen in the textile mills except engineering and mechanical workmen. The second award was given later in July 1951 and related to engineering and mechanical branches, hereinafter called Bombay Award No. 2. The first dispute between the appellant and its workmen was referred to Sri S. S. Dulat, I. C. S., Industrial Tribunal, Delhi and he made an award on May 26, 1951. Reference in Sri Dulat s award was made to the Bombay Award No. 1, as that was the only award available till then and Sri Daulat was of opinion that there was no justification for delaying standardization. He was also of opinion that the conditions prevailing in the appellant-company were not exactly the same as those in the Bombay Mills and therefore it was necessary that a local enquiry should be made to arrive at a satisfactory result. It was however agreed before him that the scheme of standardization should be worked out on the basis of the minimum basic wage of Rs. 30/- per mensem. He therefore directed the appellant-company to adopt a scheme of standardization of wages and revise the wages of all categories of workmen in accordance with that scheme, taking the Bombay scheme as a working model. This was to be worked out in consultation with the representatives of the workmen and in case any dispute regarding fixating of categories or wages could not be resolved by mutual discussion such a dispute might be brought before the tribunal in the form of a reference.

3. In consequence there was an agreement between the appellant and its workmen on September 29, 1951, by which a standardization scheme on the model of the Bombay Award No. 1 was introduced with necessary modifications. The case of the appellant was that the modifications resulted in the reduction of about 5 per cent as compared to the Bombay Award No. 1 while the case of the workmen was that it resulted in a much larger reduction in the neighbourholld of about 20 per cent. However, that may be, the wages were fixed in accordance with the agreed scheme of standardization in the appellant-company thereafter.

4. In 1953 another dispute arose between the appellant and its workmen which was referred to the adjudication of Sri Ghanshyamdas, Additional Industrial Tribunal,. Delhi. It contained five terms of reference. Four of these related to specified matters concerning other departments of the mill besides the engineering department. The fifth related to the engineering department and the tribunal was asked to decide whether the wages of the workmen employed in the engineering department need be revised and if so, on what lines and to what extent. In this connection the workmen of the engineering department contended that the Bombay Award No. 2 was not taken into account when the agreement was made in September 1951 and their main contention was t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document