Judgment

DUA, J.:- The short but important point raised in these two appeals by special leave relates to the validity of that part of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, by which the demand for vacation allowance of the workmen of the appellants Messers Polychem Ltd., Bombay, at the same rate as is granted to its higher staff both at the head Office and at its Chembur plant, was allowed. These two appeals are directed against the impugned award in two references under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, one of which (Ref. No. 284 of 1968) related to the demands of the head Office staff and the other (Reference No. 19 of 1969) to the workmen of Chembur plant.

2. The impugned portion of the award dated June 9, reads as under:

"The only other demand which is now common to both the references is the demand for the vacation allowance. It appears that the company pays to its officers or other staff drawing Rupees 600 and more as basic wage one month s salary for vacation in case his leave exceed 15 days and is not accumulable. The demand of the workmen is that the minimum should be Rupees 300 and maximum Rupees 2,000. It is pointed out for the company that this was refused by the Tribunals in Burmah Shell and Voltas. The Union on the other hand contended that it was allowed in the banks and refineries by settlements though refused by the Tribunals. The plea of discrimination, it was pointed out, has been rejected by the Tribunals (See Parke Devis, ICR 1966 p. 151 and Alembic Chemical (1961) 1 Lab LJ 328 . I, however, feel that this company can afford to pay this allowance 1969 to its workmen and avoid dissatisfaction. In socialistic Countries this is considered as an amenity to the workmen which should be provided such as subsidized or free vacation at health resorts. The ideal of wage fixation is the living wage while the national ideal envisaged in the constitution is a Socialistic State. The company can join others as the trend seems to be appearing in this region. It ensures more contended and healthy workmen. I therefore award vacation allowance to the workmen at the same rate as the staff with the same conditions.

3. The appellant s learned counsel, Shri S. V. Gupte, challenged this portion of the award on the ground that there is no evidence in support of the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal and that it proceeds on grounds which are irrelevant and contrary to the settled principles relating to Industrial disputes. Nowhere in the region is vacation allowance granted in similar Industries and there is thus no comparable instance, contended the counsel, adding that the senior assistants in the present case had also not pressed their claim to vacation allowances. It was further urged that workmen in the appellant s Industry get various other amenties like, dearness allowance, according to the revised textile rates, overtime wages, lunch allowance (not allowed to officers), gratuity (with qualifying period of 5 years as against 15 years for officers), uniforms and medical facilities. Our attention was drawn to a prepared statement produced before us on behalf of the appellant for showing the difference in the pay packet of workmen employed at the appellant s head office as a result of the award given in Reference No IT-284/68. The respondent did not accept this statement saying that it was based on the interpretation placed by the appellant to support its case. In regard to overtime allowance and other facilities referred to by Shri Gupte, the learned counsel relying, inter alia, on another statement relating to facilities accorded to the workmen in 1970-71 produced before us, submitted that the workmen were getting numerous other benefits not available to officers. This submission was, however, sought to be founded on material not on the Court record. The learned counsel strongly contended that the real criterion should have been to look to the overall pay structure of the workmen