GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has keen filed by the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. , Jaipur (hereinafter called the company) under Art 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur dated 11th November, 1965.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner company is that along with its main business of running the sugar factory at Ganganagar, it carries on the business of the distillation of liquor and in that connection it has to manage certain ware-houses in the State of Rajasthan. One of the warehouses under the management of the company is at Jhotwara near Jaipur. It is contended by the petitioner company that upto 30th of November, ly63, it was paying Rs. 50/- per month as wages to the workmen working at Jhotwara, but looking to the increase in prices, the company granted an ad hoc increase of Rs. 10/- per month in December, 1963 in the wages of its workmen. As the prices were continuously rising, another increase in the wages was ordered on 1st of February, 1964 and an ad hoc increase of Rs. 5/- was allowed. Soon after this increase in the wages, the company felt necessity of increasing the wages once again and on 1st of August, 1964 it again raised the wages of the workmen from Rs 65/- to Rs. 75/- per month. It so appears that the workmen were not satisfied with the increase of Rs 20/- in their wages within this period and their opinion therefore raised a demand for further increase in their wages and gave a notice of strike to the company. THE matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer but no settlement could be reached and the Conciliation Officer had to submit a failure report. THEreafter the Government thought that industrial dispute was in existence and, therefore, it referred the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication for which the following reference was published in the Official Gazette: "that the workmen of Jhotwara Distillery Ware House, Jaipur West be given ad-hoc increment of Rs. 5/- in their wages with effect from 1st February, 1964 and that they should be paid Rs. 100/- as their Minimum Wages and that the wages of the workmen be further increased by Rs. 20/- over the wages they were getting on 31st March, 1964. "

(3.) WHILE fixing the wages, whether they are minimum wages for fair wages, it is necessary for the authority who is entrusted with this task to see the nature of the work which the workman is required to perform and as such it can safely be said that this classification of workmen is a matter incidental to the point referred as an industrial dispute to the Tribunal. In this particular case, it is clear that the company itself conceded that the classification was necessary in order to fix the wages and it is why it was agreed by the representative of the company that four persons who were attending the siphon and the scaling machines may be classified as the semi-skilled workmen as they are required to shoulder higher responsibilities. Taking this aspect of the case, I can say that the Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction when it went to categorise the workmen for fixing the wages for them.