Judgment

GOSWAMI, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against an award of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to for brevity as the Tribunal) of 29th January, 1970. There was a reference by the Mill Mazdoor Sahab, Bombay (briefly the Sabha) under Section 73-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, in pursuance of a notice of change dated 22nd August, 1968. The Sabha demanded revision basic wages for the time-rated workmen of several categories and also a rise of 50% in the wage of the piece-rated workers in the Consumers Price Index bracket 621-630 (old series). The Subha also demanded dearness allowances of 10 paise per day for every rise of 10 points or part thereof above the said slab. They also claimed the benefit retrospectively from 1st June, 1968. The Sabha submitted its statement of claim on 14th February, 1969.

2. It appears that the appellant is a partnership firm which was constituted and commenced production in April 1967. The firm manufacturers and sells nylon and hosiery goods such as socks, under-garments, and the like. It is registered with the Maharashta State Directorate of Industries as a small scale industry, Prior to April 1967, all the partners of the appellant were partners of a firm known as M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Factory. That firm again was constituted and commenced business on and from 15th December, 1963, after the dissolution of India Hosiery Factory on 14th December, 1963, due to differences amongst the partners. On the same date, some other partners of India Hosiery Factory constituted another firm known as Stretchlon Private Ltd. While Stretcholon Private Ltd., continued to function. Hindustan Hosiery Factory was closed in August 1966 and the appellant constituted and commenced business in the name and style of Hindustan Hosiery Industries with effect from 17th April, 1967, on which date another firm also commenced business under the name and style of Hindustan Hosiery Mills. It appears that all these three firms, namely, Stretchlon Private Ltd., the appellant and the Hindustan Hosiery Mills are off shoots of the Indian Hosiery Factory with a complement of 800 workmen which was actually the pioneer in the industry.

3. The Sabha contended before the Tribunal that the consolidated wages paid to the employees were extremely low. According to the Sabha, the time-rated workmen got as low a wage as Rs. 2.50 per day and never higher than Rs. 3.50 per day. The piece-rated workers, who, according to the Sabha, are skilled workers, earned between Rs. 6/- and 7/- per day. The Sabha, therefore, claimed a revision of the wages of both the categories.

4. The appellant resisted the claim. According to the appellant, it is a new concern and has employed some of the workers of the Hindustan Hosiery Factory. The average daily wages of the piece-rated jobs vary from Rs. 6/- to Rs. 10/20 per day and are adequate. The work involved in the jobs is not of highly skilled nature. The appellant further contended that the company was only of two years standing and the wages paid by it are higher than those earned by employees of other concerns in the industry. Its financial position also cannot be assessed as it is hardly two years old. The demands are excessive and the appellant cannot bear the additional burden arising out of these demands.

5. The appellant has in its employment about 250 workers. The Tribunal had before it as statement (Ext. C-2) filed by the appellant showing the number of employees receiving wages below Rs. 5/- per day, another statement (Ext. C-3) with regard to the other employees and also the books filed by the appellant and observed that many of the piece-rated and time-rated employees got as low a wage as Rs. 4.60 per day and Rupees 2.50 per day respectively. It, therefore, held that "on the face of it the wages provided for the workmen of the factory appear to be inadequate and low and even in a loss-making concern such wages have to be raised". The appellant s