The obligation to pay fair wages to employees is paramount, and financial constraints of the employer do not exempt them from this duty.

JUDGMENT :

Sunita Agarwal, CJ.

1. These two petitions are directed against the award dated 02.09.2016 in Reference (IT) No.180 of 2011. One of the writ petitions (Special Civil Application No.18690 of 2016) has been filed with the prayer to quash the award insofar as issues No.3,7,8,10,11,13,14,15 and 17 are concerned, to modify the award insofar as the issues No.2,5,6 and 9 are concerned and resultantly confirm the award on issues No.1,4,12,16,18 and 19. In the second writ petition, the challenge is by the union, namely Gujarat Industrial Security Force (Karmachari Union) to the award pressing the demands, not acceded to by the Industrial Tribunal. We may note, at the outset, that not much has been argued about the claim/demands of the petitioner union in this writ petition on behalf of the workmen.

2. Both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgement. It may be noted that for convenience and uniformity, reference to the petitioner society and respondent union is with reference to the parties in Special Civil Application No.18690 of 2016 in the entire body of the judgement. The relevant facts of the case are that the facts Reference I.T.No.180 of 2011 was registered on the demand raised by the worker’s union for wage revision and other benefits admissible to a workman. The members of the respondent union, workmen are security guards employed by the petitioner namely the Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society (in short as “the GISFS”), which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act. It is an organization, which recruits and provides security guards to various Government, non Government, Semi-Government establishments and private organizations.

3. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is registered as ‘private security agency’ under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The Secretary, Home Department is an ex officio Chairman of the petitioner society. It is, categorically stated that the petitioner society does not receive any grant or financial assistance from the State Government and the workmen employed as security guards/ watchmen under the petitioner society are not the Government employees. The Governing body of the petitioner society takes policy decision for which no approval is needed from the State Government.

4. As per the Government policy, the petitioner society pays minimum wages fixed and all other required benefits to its workmen who worked as security guards and security sub-inspectors under the contract executed with the parent institution (Principal employer).

5. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner society does not have any independent source of income and the payment is made as per the contract entered into, by the Principal employer with the petitioner society. It is urged that the petitioner society sought opinion from the Principal employers in respect of the increase in the wages of its workmen, but they all have denied and replied that in case there is an increase of financial burden, they may discontinue with the services of the petitioners.

6. It was argued that as a result of the award, the petitioner society would have to incur additional financial burden of Rs.2,367/- per month per security guard and the total employees being approximately 4,800, the total increase in the cost per month would be Rs.1.13 crores, approximately, which would result in additional financial burden of Rs.13.63 crores annually.

7. Considering the financial condition of the petitioner society, it is not possible to incur any additional cost as directed by the Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award. It was vehemently argued that primarily due to its financial condition, the petitioner society is challenging the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

8. Apart from the above, other grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners to assail the benef