Wage adjudication must balance the employer's financial capacity and fair compensation for workmen, ensuring accurate evidence of financial claims is presented.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Borkar, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is to the Award dated 29 March 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Pune in Reference (IT) No.30 of 2015.

2. The relevant facts are simple. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It runs a factory at Ranjangaon, Pune and manufactures precision goods. The respondent is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It represents eighteen workmen employed in the petitioner’s establishment.

3. On 30 December 2014, the respondent union submitted a charter of demands to the petitioner. The petitioner did not respond. The union raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Upon failure of conciliation, the Appropriate Government made a reference on 20 June 2015 to the Industrial Tribunal, Pune regarding the said charter of demands. The union filed its statement of claim on 12 August 2015. The petitioner filed its written statement on 14 October 2015 and opposed the claim.

4. On 30 April 2016, the Industrial Tribunal passed an interim order granting an interim wage rise of three thousand rupees per month. The petitioner challenged this order in a writ petition. By order dated 30 October 2017, this Court directed the petitioner to pay three thousand rupees per month from October 2017 onwards as interim relief.

5. Both sides led evidence before the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter, on 29 March 2018, the Tribunal passed the impugned Award. It directed the petitioner to grant a wage rise of five thousand eight hundred rupees. This Award is under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Mr. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Novex Dry Cleaners v. The Workmen, 1962 (1) LLJ 271. He submitted that the Industrial Tribunal was duty bound to examine the financial capacity of the industry and its ability to bear any additional wage burden. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have made a comparison of wages with industries of a similar nature, having regard to volume of operations, share capital, strength of workforce and the number of years the industry has been in business. He submitted that these essential factors were ignored by the Tribunal.

7. He next relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Workmen, (1972) 3 SCC 552. He submitted that the Supreme Court has held that depreciation or amortization should not be used to artificially reduce profits or to show inflated losses. At the same time, he submitted that the Supreme Court in Management of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khan Udyog Sahakari Mandal v. B. S. Barot, AIR 1980 SC 31, has clarified that investment made in machinery and tools cannot be overlooked. It is held that while depreciation cannot be misused to inflate losses, the actual investment in machinery must be considered because machinery depreciates due to wear and tear over time. The amount cannot be treated as redundant. He therefore submitted that depreciation must be considered for arriving at the true profit and loss position when determining wage revision. He submitted that the conclusion of the Tribunal that depreciation should not be considered except for tools alone is contrary to the law laid down in Management