In constructing a wage structure with a scale of increments, industrial adjudication must take a long-range view and carefully examine the impact of the wage structure on the financial position of the concern in question.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, Williamsons (India) Private Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen. The appellant is a private limited company which has been established and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in 1947. Its business consists mainly of importing Mills Stores, such as leather belting, pickers, bobbins, machinery cloths. It no doubt buys and sells similar articles manufactured in India, but this part of its business is insignificant. The Secretaries of the appellant are M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. The appellant has entrusted it secretarial and accounts work to the said Secretaries who carry out the said work through the staff working directly under them on the remuneration which has been agreed between the appellant and them. The present dispute is concerned with the Sales Department managed by the appellant company itself. In this Sales Department, the appellant employs 16 workmen, two of them are designated as stenographers-cum-clerks, one typist-cum-clerk, one godown keeper, one assistant godown keeper, eight unskilled workmen and three motor-car drivers

2. Through their Union, the respondents made demands on the appellant on 29-10-1957. These demands related to the wage structure, dearness allowance, washing allowance, leave, gratuity scheme, uniforms, medical aid and bonus. These demands could not be settled amicably and so, ultimately the were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of Bombay on 26-7-1958. The reference included nine demands in all, eight of which have already been specified and the ninth was in respect of the retrospective operation of the benefits of some of the demands made by the respondents. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by them, the Tribunal made its award on 21-4-1960. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

3. The main point which Mr Sastri has made before us on behalf of the appellant is that on the finding made by the Tribunal on the principal question about the financial position of the appellant and its capacity to bear the burden, it would follow that the major portion of the award relating to wage structure and Dearness Allowance cannot be sustained. He has also contended that the Tribunal was in error in holding that concerns like Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., Greaves Cotton, Gannon Dunkerly, Parry & Co., and Forbes Forbes & Co. are comparable to the appellant. It is on these two points that the validity of the substantial portion of the award is challenged before us by Mr Sastri.

4. It appears that before the Tribunal it was urged that the financial position of the appellant was not very satisfactory and that its business was fast decreasing. In support of this plea, a confidential statement Ex. C/3 was filed by the appellant. The correctness of this statement was not challenged by the respondents. This statement shows that since 1956 the quota allotted to the appellant has been considerably reduced in regard to most of the articles and in respect of some, it has been cancelled. The appellant urged that it had been carrying on its business during the recent years because of the previous stock which remained with it and its case was that owing to the reduction in the quota in a large number of articles and its cancellation in respect of some, it would not be able to carry on the business for long and so, it would be unreasonable to impose upon it the additional burden of a new and enhanced wage structure. The Tribunal partly accepted this argument and held that it appeared highly improbable that for some time to come the quotas would be increased to any appreciable extent. But it went on to observe that it was likely that some of the articles which were now imported by the appellant might be manufactured locally and that the Tribunal did not think that the appellant would