Wage structure, dearness allowance, overtime allowance, retiring age, gratuity scheme, and date of operation of award in industrial disputes are determined based on region-cum-industry basis, comparable concerns, prevailing system, and discretion of the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

K.N. Wanchoo, J.

1. This is an appeal by special leave by the workmen of Messrs Jessop's Co. Ltd., against the award of the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. There was a dispute between the appellant-workmen and their employer who is the first respondent in the present appeal about, a number of matters, which were referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. In the present appeal we are concerned only with some of the matters which were in dispute before the Tribunal; and they are these:

(1) Grades and scales of pay.

(2) Dearness allowance for subordinate staff.

(3) Overtime allowance.

(4) Retiring age.

(5) Gratuity scheme.

Besides the appellants also challenge the date from which the award has been ordered to be brought into operation by the Tribunal.

2. The appellants wanted the existing scales of pay for clerks and subordinate staff to be substantially raised and in this connection relied upon the scales of pay prevalent in Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd., Western Indian Match Co. Ltd. Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. and Volkart Brothers Limited. The Tribunal however pointed out that three of these concerns on which the appellants rolled were not comparable as they were not engineering concerns like the first respondent. It also pointed out that Volkart Brothers Limited was mainly not an engineering concern, though it had some engineering business. The Tribunal therefore mainly relied in this connection on the award of the third engineering tribunal which dealt with the engineering industry in that part of the country and consequently made certain changes in the scales and grades of pay which were slightly more favourable to the appellants than the existing scales of pay.

3. Asto dearness allowance for the subordinate staff, the appellants claimed it, at the rate of what is known as the Bengal Chamber of Commerce Dearness Allowance, which is meant for clerical staff the head office and which the clerical staff in the present case are getting. The Tribunal however held that the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance is not applicable to subordinate staff and following the awards of the three major engineering tribunals made certain changes in the dearness allowance in favour of the appellants, though it refused to grant the scale according to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance.

4. Asto overtime, the appellants claimed it at twice the ordinary rate of wages. The existing rate was 1 of the basic rate of pay. The Tribunal has allowed 1½ times the basic hourly wage for the workmen at the head office.

5. Asto retiring age, it appears that present retirement age is 55 years for clerical staff. The Tribunal refused to increase the retirement age beyond 55.

6. Asto gratuity, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the time was not ripe for providing for gratuity in addition to provident fund which was already existing in the respondent-company.

7. Finally, the Tribunal ordered that rates of pay and dearness allowance fixed by it shall be payable from January 1, 1960. We shall now proceed with the points raised before us one by one.

Re (1) Grades of pay

8. It is well settled that wages including wage scales are fixed on region-cum-industry basis, and one of the reasons behind this principle is that concerns of more or less of the same standing in the same industry should have as nearly as possible same wages so that they might stand on a par with one another in the matter of competition. Otherwise if disparate rates of wages are fixed in a particular concern, which are much higher than the prevailing rates of wages in concerns of similar standing in the same industry, it will be put at a disadvantage when it comes to compete in the market in the sale of its product. It is for this reason that when scales of pay are being fixed that tribunals look at what are called comparable concerns in framing wage structure. We are therefore of opinion that the Tribunal was right in refusing to treat the four concerns on the wage structure