1962 INSC 0051
Novex Dry Cleaners
v.
Its Workmen
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. GAJENDRA GADKAR HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE A.K. SARKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. WANCHOO
Civil Appeal No. 524 Of 1960 | 05-02-1962

Gajendragadkar, J.

1. An industrial dispute arose between the appellant, Novex Dry Cleaners and
the respondents, its workers. This dispute related to seven items of demands
made by the respondents against the appellant. It appears that similar demands
were made by the workmen of twenty-seven other dry cleaners in New Delhi.
That is how the dispute in respect of these demands between twenty-eight dry
cleaners, including the appellant, and their respective workmen was referred for
adjudication before the industrial tribunal, Delhi, by the Chief Commissioner of
New Delhi. This reference was treated as Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1957. At
the same time, a similar dispute had arisen between the workmen and two other
dry cleaning institutions in New Delhi. These institutions were Snowhite and
Band Box, respectively. A separate reference was made to the same industrial
tribunal for the adjudication of the said dispute and it was treated as Industrial
Dispute No. 66 of 1957. The latter reference ended in two awards which were
the result of a settlement between the two establishments and their respective
employees. The former went to adjudication and an award was pronounced by
the tribunal in that dispute on 3 September 1958. Against that award, the
appellant has come to this Court by special leave and in the present appeal, the
appellant has challenged the validity of the award in respect of five items in
dispute.

2. The main criticism has centred around the wage structure fixed by the
appellant in respect of its employees. The tribunal took the view that the case of
the appellant was comparable to the cases of the Snowhite and Band Box
establishments and that it would be fair and reasonable to adopt the wage scale
which had been determined in the awards made between the said two

                    1  SpotLaw
establishments and their employees. According to the tribunal, the case of the
appellant was easily distinguishable from the cases of the twenty-seven other
establishments involved in the reference in that the said establishments were
comparatively of recent origin and financially much less stable and prosperous
than the appellant. The appellant concern, said the tribunal, is one of the biggest
establishments and so it would be fair and reasonable to adopt for its employees
the same wage structure which would now prevail in the two other concerns,
viz., Snowhite and Band Box. Accordingly, the tribunal classified the
employees into six categories and prescribed a wage scale with increments for
them respectively. The correctness of this part of the award is very seriously
challenged before us by Sri Sastri for the appellant.It appears from the award
that the tribunal addressed itself correctly to the true legal position governing
the fixation of a wage structure in industrial disputes. It realized that in deciding
upon a wage structure, it may be relevant to take into account the wages
prevailing in the industry in the said region, that the wages will have to be fixed
in a fair and just way and above all, it would be necessary to examine whether
the wage structure proposed to be fixed could be fairly and reasonably borne by
the financial position of the establishment. It is now well settled that in fixing a
minimum wage, the capacity of the industry to pay the wage is not relevant. But
in fixing a fair wage, the capacity of the industry to bear the burden of the said
wage is a very relevant and very important factor. Therefore, there can be no
doubt that before fixing the wage structure, it was necessary that the tribunal
should have examined the financial position of the appellant and come to a
definite conclusion in that behalf.

3. The award shows that in support of their claim for a higher wage, the
respondents relied upon the wage structure prevailing in oil companies like the
Standard Vacuum Oil Company, or in concerns like Bata Shoe Company,
Marshal & Sons, and May and Baker. The tribunal refused to treat these wage
structures as relevant and, in our opinion, rightly. The management relied upon
the wage structure prescribed by an award in respect of the dry cleaning
industry in Bombay on 24 December 1953 (Ex. M105). The tribunal refused to
attach any importance to this award on the ground that it related to the industry
in a different region. Since the award related to the industry in Bombay, it
would naturally not be justified to attach undue importance to it; but, on the
other hand, evidence supplied by the said award cannot be said to be altogether
irrelevant. Then the tribunal considered the two awards made between the
Snowhite dry cleaners and the Band Box dry cleaners and it held that the
position of the appellant was comparable to that of the said two establishments.

2  SpotLaw
It observed that the appellant is in a prosperous condition; that it is also
registered under the Factories Act; that it has been in existence since 1937 and it
has been making steady profits and so it was comparable with Band Box and
Snowhite. It is on these grounds that the tribunal based its conclusion that the
appellant had the capacity to pay incremental wage scales fixed for the
Snowhite and the Band Box.In our opinion, this conclusion is open to serious
criticism. In dealing with the question as to whether the appellant establishment
was comparable to Snowhite and Band Box, it was obviously necessary to
compare the three institutions in respect of their standing, the extent of the
labour force employed by them, the extent of their respective customers and,
what is more important, a comparative study should have been made of the
profits and losses incurred by them for some years before the date of the award.
Unfortunately, the tribunal has not even considered the balance-sheets produced
by the appellant showing the position of the profit and loss of the appellant
itself. These documents are Exs. M2, M4, M6, M8 and M10. The financial
position of the two other concerns had not been referred to in the award and
presumably no evidence about the said point was adduced before the tribunal.
On the question of the strength of the labour force, it appears that the appellant
engages 109 permanent employees and twenty to thirty temporary employees,
whereas the Snowhite appears to have 258 persons on its rolls; about the labour
force of the Band Box, there is no evidence. The oral evidence given by some of
the witnesses on behalf of the respondents is very vague and cannot at all serve
to support the finding about the financial position of the appellant. Therefore, in
our opinion, the tribunal was in error in making a finding about the financial
position of the appellant in comparison to that of the Snowhite and the Band
Box without applying tits mind to the relevant factors and without calling upon
the parties to adduce relevant and material evidence in that behalf. It is well
known that in fixing the wage structure on a fair basis, an attempt is generally
made in assessing the additional liability imposed upon the employer by the
new wage structure and trying to anticipate whether the employer would be able
to meet it for a reasonably long period in future. Since the tribunal has not
considered these aspects of the matter at all, we cannot uphold its award
whereby it has merely adopted the wage scale fixed by the two awards in
respect of the Snowhite and the Band Box.Besides, having fixed six categories
of workmen, the tribunal has left it to the management and the workmen in
consultation with each other to place the several workmen in the relevant
category. That again is not a very satisfactory solution of the problem. The
tribunal should have described the functions of the different categories, and
after hearing the parties, have given indications in the award itself as to how
different employees should be placed in what category. Therefore, in our

3  SpotLaw
opinion, the grievance made by the appellant against that part of the award
which deals with the wage structure and the categorization of the employees is
justified and it must be set aside. We tried to see if this problem could be settled
in this Court and so we gave time to the parties to attempt to find a solution by
consent. That attempt, however, failed and so the only alternative left is to send
the matter back to the tribunal with a direction that the tribunal should examine
the problem afresh in the light of this judgment, allow the parties to lead
relevant evidence in respect of their rival contentions and deal with the question
of wage structure according to law.

4. The next contention raised is in respect of the direction issued by the tribunal
for the continuance of the payment of the seasonal allowances. The tribunal has
directed that the seasonal allowance that is being paid to the workmen will
continue to be paid irrespective of the wages fixed as above. It is fairly
conceded by Sri Kumar for the respondents that this direction is presumably the
result of an oversight. It appears that pending the enquiry before the tribunal,
the employees suggested to the tribunal that by way of interim relief some
payment should be made to them before the final award was made. It was urged
by them that the employer had agreed before the conciliation officer to give
some interim relief as suggested by the conciliation officer himself and that was
the basis of the claim which was ultimately awarded by the tribunal under the
clause of seasonal allowances. That being so, it would be illogical to direct the
continuance of the said seasonal allowance even after the wage structure is
fixed. That is why the order made by the tribunal that the seasonal allowance
should be a permanent fixture of the wage structure must be set aside. But as we
have set aside the wage structure as fixed by the tribunal, the seasonal
allowance will continue till such time as the tribunal fixes the wage structure
again.The next item of controversy is in relation to the leave facilities
prescribed by the award. Here again through oversight, the tribunal has directed
the appellant to grant more leave under three items than has been provided for
by the awards against the Band Box and the Snowhite Festival leave in factory
which has been fixed by the tribunal at twelve, presumably on the ground that it
is existing at present, is more than what has been awarded in the Band Box and
Snowhite cases. Relevant leave allowed by the said awards is nine days.
Similarly, casual-cum-sick leave in factory is fixed at twelve days whereas it is
fixed at seven days in the case of the other two concerns and casual-cum-sick
leave in shops is fixed at twelve days instead of ten days in the two other
concerns. It is not seriously disputed that no injustice would be done to the
respondents if in respondents in the same way as the workmen in the two

4  SpotLaw
concerns have been treated. Accordingly, leave under the three items would be
reduced from twelve, twelve, twelve, to nine, seven and ten, respectively.

5. That takes us to the appellant's contention about the bonus ordered to be paid
by the tribunal for the relevant year. The tribunal has held that the available
surplus is Rs. 14, 812-12-0 and so it has directed the appellant to pay a month's
wages to the respondents by way of bonus. Several contentions have been raised
against the award of bonus by the tribunal and it is urged that even the
calculation about the total monthly wage bill of the appellant is erroneous. It is,
however, not necessary to deal with the appellant's contentions on this point
because by consent it has been agreed between the parties that by way of bonus,
the appellant should pay to all its employees together Rs. 2, 000 for the relevant
year.That leaves only one point to be considered and it relates to the provident
fund. The tribunal has directed that since the appellant is a fairly established
concern, it can afford to have a provident fund scheme and it has ordered that a
contributory provident fund scheme and it has ordered that a contributory
provident fund scheme shall be introduced by the appellant in accordance with
the provisions of and on the lines of the Employees' Provident Fund Act. The
rate of contribution by the employees has been fixed by the tribunal at six and a
half per cent of their wages and the employer is required to contribute an equal
amount to the fund. In our opinion, there would be no justification for
interfering with this part of the award. The liability imposed on the appellant by
the introduction of the provident fund scheme is not shown to be either
excessive or to be beyond the paying capacity of the appellant. Unlike the wage
structure which cannot be fixed without determining the financial position of
the appellant and deciding whether the appellant concern is comparable to
Snowhite and Band Box, the liability imposed by the provident fund is not
shown to be unreasonable at all. Indeed, though Sri Sastri suggested that the
scheme should not be introduced, he was unable to give any satisfactory reason
in support of his contention. A provident fund scheme like the one framed by
the tribunal in the present case has now become almost a normal feature in
many industrial concerns and so, Sri Sastri could not seriously press his
objections against the scheme. His main attack was against the wage structure.

6. The result is, the award in respect of provident fund is confirmed, in respect
of bonus is modified by consent, and is modified in regard to the leave facilities
in the three items indicated and reversed in regard to the seasonal allowance and
the wage structure, and the matter is sent back to the tribunal for the decision of

5  SpotLaw
the last item in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
There would be no order as to costs.

6  SpotLaw