Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:-In this appeal, by special leave, Mr. G. B. Pal learned counsel for the appellant, challenges the award dated the 26th April, 1968, of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, in Reference (IT) No. 258 of 1964 granting interim relief to workmen according to the recommendations of the Central Wage Board for Engineering Industries. The main Reference itself takes in several matters, such as fixation of wage scales, classification, dearness allowance, production bonus. gratuity etc.

2. The Steel Mazdoor Sabha, representing the workmen filed an application for grant of interim relief on the ground that the proceedings before the Tribunal are not likely to come to an end at an early date. In fact, the application was filed for the grant of interim relief, based on the recommendations for payment of interim relief, made by the Central Wage Board for the Engineering Industries on February 12, 1966 and accepted by the Central Government on July 23, 1966. The claim on behalf of the workmen was that they must be paid interim relief at the rate of : (a) Rs. 6/- per month in respect of workmen earning wages above Rs. 150/- but not more than Rs. 250/- per month, and (b) Rs. 5/- per month in respect of workmen earning above Rs. 250/- but not more than Rs. 500/- per month.

3. It is brought to our notice that in view of certain technical aspects involved in the adjudication of certain matters covered by the Reference, the Tribunal has appointed Assessors for making recommendations regarding those matters. It is further represented that the Assessors appointed, at the suggestion of the employers have submitted their report; but in respect of Production bonus, the assessors appointed at the suggestion of the workmen have yet to investigate the matter and submit their report. Quite naturally, some more time may elapse by the time the final award is passed by the Tribunal.

4. The claim of the workmen for payment of interim relief was contested by the appellants on the ground that after the Reference, under certain Settlements, they have made substantial payments which have added to the emoluments of the workmen and hence no interim relief is necessary to the workmen. They further pleaded that if amounts have to be paid on the basis of the interim relief claimed by the workmen, the company will not be able to bear the financial burden inasmuch as it was suffered a loss of over 37 lacs rupees during the year 1967-68 and as even, according to the workmen, the additional burden that the company will have to bear on that score will be in the region of 1.92 lacs a year.

5. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the additional emoluments, claimed to have been paid by the appellants after the Reference, must be considered to be payments made for the increased production shown by the workmen. This view of the Tribunal is criticized by Mr. Pai on the ground that the nature of the payment made under the settlement has been misunderstood by the Tribunal. Counsel has also pointed out that even the category of workmen who are eligible for interim relief as claimed by the Sabha, has also been misunderstood by the Tribunal. The more serious attack against the order of the Tribunal is that it has not considered one of the very material factors, to be taken into account for such purpose, namely, the financial capacity of the appellant to bear the additional burden. Mr. Pai, no doubt attempted to show by reference to the records that the appellant will not be able to bear the financial burden. Mr. H. K. Sowani, also tried to satisfy us that the appellant s financial capacity is sound.

6. We have thought it unnecessary to deal with the material on record, because such material will have to be considered by the Tribunal before a final adjudication is made by it in respect of matters referred to it. As the matter is still pending before the Tribunal, we have refrained from considering the material on record and to express an opinion on