WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. WOOLCOMBERS WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Woolcombers of India Limited have their factory at Jagatdal, 21 miles from Calcutta. They shall hereafter be addressed as Woolcombers. They are the appellants in this case. The respondents are their workmen employed in the factory at Jagatdal. They are represented by two Unions: Woolcombers Workers' Union and the Issac Holdens Mazdoor Union. On June 4, 1969, the West Bengal Government referred an industrial dispute between the Woolcombers and their workmen to the 6th Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta for adjudication. As many as 10 points of dispute were referred. Parties filed their written statements and produced their oral and documentary evidence. After examining the evidence, the Tribunal gave its award on September 26, 1969. All the referred points except a part of point No. 1 and point No. 7 were decided against the workmen. Point No. 7 related to the categorisation of workmen in the factory. They were catagorised into four classes: (1) highly skilled workmen, (2) skilled workmen, (3) semi-skilled workmen and (4) unskilled workmen. The finding on point No. 7 is not impugned in this appeal. A part of point No. 1 relating to the fixation of grades and scales of pay was decided against the workmen. There is no appeal against this Part of the award by the workmen. The remaining part of point No. 1 relating to the fixation of the basic wage and dearness allowance was decided in favour of the workmen. The basic wage of the workmen was fixed in the following manner: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_318_3_1974Html1.htm</FRM> <PG>320</PG> They were also given an increment of Rs. 10.00 over the basic wage. The basic wage of other employees was fixed in the following manner: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_318_3_1974Html2.htm</FRM>

(2.) BEFORE the award, all the workers were getting dearness allowance at the flat rate of Rs. 94.10 p. The award has varied the dearness allowance in the following manner:

(3.) IT may be observed that the first passage quoted by us states only the conclusions. IT does not give the supporting reasons. The second passage quoted by us states merely one of the reasons. The other relevant reasons are not disclosed. The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Art. 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases this investment of time and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions. So' it is necessary to emphasise that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions.