1. Industrial dispute concerning the fixation of minimum wages and dearness allowance under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.C.Das Gupta : P.B.Gajendragadkar
Bijay Cotton Mills Limited
Versus
Its Workmen
Case No. : 355 of 1958
Date of Decision : 2/12/60
Advocates Appeared: Andley S.N. : Dadachanji J.B. : Narain Rajindar : Nath Rameshwar : Sastri A.V.Viswanatha : Sharma B.D.
Important Points
Statutory notifications under the Minimum Wages Act are reliable guides for wage fixation when other evidence is unsatisfactory. Additionally, the central government becomes the "appropriate government" for a controlled industry under the Industrial Disputes Act only upon specific notification "in this behalf," not merely by the industry's controlled status.
Subject
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(a)(i), 10(1) and 12(5) - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 - Fixation of minimum wages - Statutory notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act affords the best and safest guide in the matter of fixation of minimum wage in the absence of satisfactory evidence on record - Appellate tribunal is justified in relying on statutory fixation of minimum wage even for a period prior to the notification coming into force if other evidence is unsatisfactory. (Paras 8, 10)
(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(a)(i) - Appropriate Government - For the central government to be the appropriate government in relation to a controlled industry, it must specify "in this behalf" that the industry is a controlled industry - Mere inclusion of an industry in the First Schedule to the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, is not sufficient to make the central government the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act unless a specific notification is made for that purpose. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between an employer and employees regarding the fixation of minimum wages and dearness allowance. After a series of awards and remands, the Industrial Tribunal fixed the basic wage at Rs. 25. The Labour Appellate Tribunal increased this to Rs. 30, relying on a statutory notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act which fixed the basic wage at Rs. 30. The employer challenged this increase, the validity of the appointment of the Tribunal member, and the jurisdiction of the authority that referred the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Appellate Tribunal did not commit an error of law in preferring the statutory notification over unsatisfactory evidence. The appointment of the Tribunal member was valid as the previous appointee's services were unavailable. The referring authority was the appropriate government as the central government had not specifically notified the industry as a controlled industry for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal could rely on a statutory notification to increase minimum wages for a period prior to the notification's effect; whether the appointment of the Tribunal member was legally valid; and whether the referring authority was the "appropriate government" under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory notifications under the Minimum Wages Act are reliable guides for wage fixation when other evidence is insufficient. Furthermore, for the central government to be the "appropriate government" for a controlled industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a specific notification must be issued by the central government for that purpose; general control under the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act is insufficient.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(a)(i) - Appropriate Government - For the central government to be the appropriate government in relation to a controlled industry, it must specify "in this behalf" that the industry is a controlled industry - Mere inclusion of an industry in the First Schedule to the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, is not sufficient to make the central government the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act unless a specific notification is made for that purpose. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between an employer and employees regarding the fixation of minimum wages and dearness allowance. After a series of awards and remands, the Industrial Tribunal fixed the basic wage at Rs. 25. The Labour Appellate Tribunal increased this to Rs. 30, relying on a statutory notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act which fixed the basic wage at Rs. 30. The employer challenged this increase, the validity of the appointment of the Tribunal member, and the jurisdiction of the authority that referred the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Appellate Tribunal did not commit an error of law in preferring the statutory notification over unsatisfactory evidence. The appointment of the Tribunal member was valid as the previous appointee's services were unavailable. The referring authority was the appropriate government as the central government had not specifically notified the industry as a controlled industry for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal could rely on a statutory notification to increase minimum wages for a period prior to the notification's effect; whether the appointment of the Tribunal member was legally valid; and whether the referring authority was the "appropriate government" under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory notifications under the Minimum Wages Act are reliable guides for wage fixation when other evidence is insufficient. Furthermore, for the central government to be the "appropriate government" for a controlled industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a specific notification must be issued by the central government for that purpose; general control under the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act is insufficient.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.D.SHARMA, J.B.DADACHAN, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.D.SHARMA, J.B.DADACHAN, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the basic wage increase, the validity of the tribunal's appointment, and the jurisdiction of the referring authority. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 )
3. Statutory notifications are reliable guides for wage fixation; government may appoint a successor tribunal when the previous appointee is unavailable. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Inclusion of an industry in the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act does not make the Central Government the appropriate government without specific notification under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 13 )
6. Can statutory minimum wage notifications be used as a guide for periods preceding their official commencement?
Yes, the court found that statutory notifications under the Minimum Wages Act serve as the best and safest guide, and applying such rates to a period prior to their enforcement is not an error of law. (Para 8 , 10 )
7. When can a government validly appoint a new industrial tribunal member despite a prior appointment?
When the previously appointed member's services are unavailable to the appropriate government, the government is competent to fill the vacancy and appoint a new member to adjudicate the dispute. (Para 11 )
8. Does being a controlled industry under the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act automatically designate the Central Government as the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act?
No, the Central Government must specifically designate the industry as a controlled industry for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act to become the appropriate government under Section 2(a)(i). (Para 12 )
P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.
(1) THE industrial dispute between the Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellant) and their workmen (hereinafter called the respondents) which has given rise to this appeal by special leave has gone through a protracted and tortuous course. The respondents claimed that the scale of minimum wages and rates for contract works should be fixed for them because it was alleged that the payments made by the appellant were below the level of the bare subsistence wage. The appellant did not accede to the demand thus made by the respondents, and so on De 1/12/1950, the-present dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial tribunal consisting of Mr. D. N. Roy, under s. 10(1) read with s. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). Amongst the items thus referred for adjudication, the first two were (1) that the mill employees be paid minimum wages and rates for contract works as shown in the two statements enclosed, and (2) that dearness allowance be paid to all workers at the rate of. Rs. 35.00 permensem each and it may be increased or decreased according to rise or fall in prices. In the present appeal we are concerned with the minimum wages.
(2) IT appears that Mr. Roy found himself unable to fix any basic minimum wage, and to support his view, that it would be inexpedient to fix any minimum basic wage in the proceedings pending before him, he referred to the fact that the question of fixation of the basic wage had been rendered enormously difficult by the state of industrial development in the State of Ajmer and by the unsteady and frequent fluctuations in prices. Even so be considered several items of dispute referred to him and announced his award on 5/10/1951.
(3) THIS award was challenged by the respondents before the Labour Appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal there upon remanded the matter to Mr. Roy with a direction that the issues as to the basic wage and as to dearness allowance should be specifically determined and appropriate directions issued on those two items. This remand order was passed on 20/10/1952.
(4) BY the time the proceedings were taken up before the tribunal on remand, Mr. Roy was not available because he had ceased to be a District Judge in Ajmer. In his place Mr. Sharma was appointed. Mr. Sharma then made his award on 8/09/1953. He fixed Rs. 25.00 as basic wage and Rs. 10.00 as minimum dearness allowance. It appears that the award thus made by Mr. Sharma was subsequently quashed on the ground that his appointment had not been duly published as required by the Act. This order was passed on 25/05/1955.
(5) MR. C. Jacob was then appointed Industrial tribunal. He made his award on 25/01/1956. By this award Mr. Jacob in substance agreed with the view taken by Mr. Sharma and fixed the basic wage at Rs. 25.00 per mensem and the minimum dearness allowance at Rs. 10.00 per mensem. This award was directed to come into operation as from 1/12/1950. This award was again challenged before the Labour Appellate tribunal and the appellate tribunal has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and increased the basic wage from Rs. 25.00 per mensem to Rs. 30.00 per mensem. The amount of the minimum dearness allowance has been affirmed at Rs. 10.00 permensem. This decision was announced by the appellate tribunal on 12/12/1956. It is this decision that has given rise to the present appeal by special leave.
(6) IT is common ground that a Statutory Committee was appointed under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948) in respect of Ajmer on 17/01/1952. Its report was submitted on 4/10/1952, and a notification was issued in pursuance of the said report on 7/10/1952. This notification has come into force as from 8/01/1953, and in consequence the basic minimum wage is now statutorily fixed at Rs. 30.00 per mensem and dearness allowance at Rs. 26.00 per mensem. Thus it wo
