JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J. :—Special leave granted in the aforesaid special leave petitions.

2. Five references bearing Nos. (i) 123 of 1977, (ii) 215 of 1979 (iii) 91 of 1984, (iv) 92 of 1984 and (v) 43 of 1985, the first three under Section 10(2) and the remaining two under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the I.D. Act, arose out of certain demands made by the workmen-employees of Hindustan Lever Limited as well as the managements Notice of Change for the imposition of a ceiling on dearness allowance. These disputes concerned the demands made by the monthly rated clerical and technical staff working at the Sewree factory of the Company as well as the monthly rated C & T categories of workmen employed at the Companys head-office and branch office in Bombay, the former represented by Hindustan Lever Employees Union, hereinafter called the Union and the latter represented by Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha, hereinafter call the Sabha. The Company had desired placement of a ceiling on dearness allowance based on the premise that in the absence of such a ceiling the neutralisation factor exceeded 100 . It may here be mentioned that both the clerical and technical staff of the Company was, at all material times classified into four categories, namely, C-10 C-4 and T-1 to T-4 carrying different pay-scales. The clerical staff worked for 36 hours a week, whereas the technical staff worked for 48 hours a week. It is not necessary for us to indicate the nature of demands made by the workmen in the aforesaid references because we are, in the present appeals, mainly concerned with the companys demand for placing a ceiling on dearness allowance. The Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, by its Award dated 18th December, 1985 conceded the demand of the management for the placement of a ceiling on dearness allowance on basic pay exceeding Rs. 5000/- per month. The Tribunal also granted certain demands of the workmen in regard to upward revision of pay-scales, grant of special allowance, social security allowance, ad hoc allowance, automatic promotion scheme, etc., but since we are concerned with the limited question in regard to the placement of a ceiling on dearness allowance as demanded by the management, it is unnecessary for us to refer to the demands of the workmen which were not conceded by the Tribunal and against which the workmen had approached the High Court. The workmen had also challenged the Tribunals Award conceding the managements demand for placement of a ceiling on dearness allowance. The learned single Judge who heard the Writ Petition upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal placing a ceiling on dearness allowance but modified the Award with regard to certain other demands. Against the decision of the learned single Judge appeals were carried to the Division Bench of the High Court. In the said appeals the Division Bench was called upon to examine the correctness of the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal in regard to the placement of a ceiling on dearness allowance which came to be affirmed by the learned single Judge. In addition the Division Bench was also invited to deal with the demand for automatic promotion which was conceded by the Tribunal but spurned by the learned single Judge who substituted it by the grant of stagnation increment. The management also made a grievance before the Division Bench in regard to grant of stagnation increment and upward revision of wages. The Division Bench rejected the managements plea against stagnation increment but preferred to make a remand in respect of wage revision. The major issue was, however, in regard to ceiling fixed on dearness allowance where basic wage exceeded Rs. 500/-.

3. Under the extant scheme, the dearness allowance was linked to index 1450 of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Bombay (1934=100) at 635 of basic wage for the first Rs. 100/-, at 284.25 of basic wage for the second Rs. 100/- and at 251 of basic wage where the salary e