INDIAN OXYGEN LIMITED Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the Industrial Tribunal, maharashtra in a dispute between the appellant-company and its workmen. The reference was on six matters, namely, (i) wage scales, (ii) adjustments, (iii) increments, (iv) classification, (v) designation of certain workmen, and (vi) merger of dearness allowance. The tribunal rejected the demands relating to increments and merger of dearness allowance. With respect to the other four matters referred TO it, the tribunal fixed revised scales of wages and provided for the manner in which adjustments would be made. As to classification, the tribunal ordered that the employees would be classified by the appellant after consulting both the unions in an advisory capacity. It also changed the designation of plant-attendants to plant-operators.

(2.) The present appeal by the appellant-company is directed against two matters dealt with in the award, namely, (i) wage scales and (ii) classification. The appellant contends that the tribunal made a mistake when it held that wage-scales required reconsideration, particularly as this matter had been considered by another tribunal in 1957 and that tribunal had decided to keep the previously existing scales which were in force since 1949 except in the case of mazdoor I and Mazdoor II. It is further contended that the tribunal was not justified in comparing wage-scales in concerns which were clearly not comparable with the appellant-company. Further it is pointed out that the tribunal made obvious mistakes in the award some of which it later corrected and this clearly shows that the matter was not given that consideration by the tribunal which it deserved. As to classification, it has been urged that the tribunal should not have left the question of classification to the appellant-company as that would lead to endless disputes between the appellant and its workmen.

(3.) We are of opinion that there is no force in any of these contentions. There is no doubt that wage-scales which were revised by the tribunal were fixed as far back as 1949. Obviously, therefore, there would be a clear case for revision of wage-scales in 1962, for it is not, and cannot be, disputed that there has been considerable change in circumstances between 1949 and 1962. But it is urged on behalf of the appellant-company that though wage scales, which have been revised under the present award, were fixed in 1949, they came up for revision before another tribunal in 1957. The then tribunal was of opinion that the scales of pay of most of the categories of workmen were quite satisfactory and proceeded only to revise the scales of pay of Mazdoor I and mazdoor II. It is therefore urged that the fact that the existing scales which have been revised under the award were fixed in 1949 loses all importance because they came up for reconsideration in 1957, and the then tribunal thought that no case had been made out for their revision. Therefore, the argument is that unless there is a change in circumstances after 1957, there would be no reason to revise the wage-scales as has been done by the tribunal. But as the tribunal has pointed out, there has been an increase in the cost of living even since 1957. It has further pointed out that dearness allowance at the best may neutralise the increase in the cost of living fully in the case of workmen drawing a basic wage of Rs 30. 00; it does not neutralise the increase in the cost of living in the case of those drawing above the minimum wage, and as the wage increases the neutralisation affected by dearness allowance becomes less and less. Therefore, when cost of living has gone up since 1957, a case has been made out for revising wage scales in 1952. The tribunal has further pointed out that there have been since 1949 a large number of awards and agreements in prosperous concerns like the appellant-company wherein higher wages have been fixed. It may be that the wage-scales fixed in the appellant-company in 1949 were on the high side as compared to other concerns of the same standing in that region. But if, as pointed out by the tribunal, the other concerns are now giving higher wages than they were giving in 19-1-9 due either to agreements or to awards, wage-scales fixed in the appellant-company should also be revised in order to maintain it in the same leading position as it apparently held in 1949. In this connection our attention was drawn to a number of charts filed on behalf of the appellant comparing the total wage packet of the appellant-company as it stands after revision with such other concerns as the appellant considered comparable. These charts in our opinion as prepared do not depict the correct position because the dearness allowance payable by the appellant-company is on a different basis from the dearness allowance payable in the concerns, which appear in these charts. The appellant-company apparently pays dearness allowance at the old textile scale but for all days in the month while the other companies which have been taken for comparison pay the revised textile scale which is apparently higher than the old textile scale for all days in the month which the appellant is paying. So, the comparison made in these charts is not very helpful in showing that the revised wage scales have made such changes in the wage structure in the appellant company as to put it completely out of line with comparable concerns. It appears to us that with the changes made in the wage scales all that has happened is that the appellant-company still maintains a lead in the matter of total wage packet as against the comparable concerns in the same way as it did in 1949. In the circumstances, we agree with the tribunal that a case had been made out for revising the wage scales even though in 1957 the then tribunal did not think it necessary to make any change in the wage-scales prevailing in this company except in the case of Mazdoor I and Mazdoor II.