Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Tribunal has not stated the reasons in support of its conclusions. This criticism of Shri Chaudhary, counsel for the Woolcombers, appears to us to be right. As ;regards basic wages, the Tribunal says only this : "I am inclined to lay down the basic wages of the workmen...... those who are highly skilled workmen .... will get Rs. 32/per week as their basic wages. Those who are skilled workmen. . . . will get Rs. 28/- per week as their basic wages. Those who are semi-

skilled workmen .... will get Rs. 25/- Per week as their basic wages. Those who are unskilled workmen will get Rs. 22.50P. per week as their basic wages." As regards the basic. wages of other employees, the Tribunal says : "Now in the light of the enhanced pay as revised by me, in respect of skilled, unskilled, semi-skilled and highly skilled wor- kers, I want to revise" the existing wages of clerks, drivers, durwan, Sweeper, laboratory assistants and overlookers.

The referring order of the West Bengal Government does not ask the Tribunal to fix the bare minimum wage as explained in the aforesaid decision; nor do the pleadings of the two Unions set out a clear and unambiguous plea for the bare minimum wage. Paragraph 6 of the written statement filed by the Issac Holdens Mazdoor Union states that "the conditions of service for the workmen have been kept miserably low on the lines of the jute workers." Paragraph 8 says that the basic wages of workmen of all categories "are low." This, in our opinion, is not a clear and unequivocal plea for the bare minimum wage. Paragraphs 6 and 8 make a statement of the factual position regarding the condition of service including the basic wages in the factory at the time of the reference of the, dispute to the Tribunal. It is no where stated in the aforesaid written statement that the workers were claiming bare minimum wage. Paragraph 11 of the written statement seems to suggest to the contrary. It is said in this paragraph that the, claims made in the written statement "are just and reasonable and the Company has capacity to meet these claims." The question whether the claim for a particular basic wage is just and reasonable or whether the employer has the capacity to pay the claimed basic wage is wholly irrelevant to the demand of the bare, minimum wage. The bare minimum wage, as pointed out in the Kamani Metals and Alloys vs. Their Workmen (supra) must be paid by an employer in spite of want of financial capacity. The bare minimum wage is the "lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity." Paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by the Woolcombers Workmen Union states that the wages "paid to the workers are not only below the level of fair wages but far below the need-based minimum even as recommended by the Fifteenth Indian Labour Conference." Paragraph 8 of the written statement reiterates that the "existing wages in the factory are much below the need-based minimum." These two paragraphs do not go beyond stating the factual position in respect of wages in the factory. They do not say that the bare minimum wage is not being paid nor do they demand it. Paragraph 7 of the written statement states that the ,workers have been assured under the Constitution of India that living wages would be made available to them. The concept of living wage is dynamic and not static. It varies from time to time and country to country. Today they need-based minimum wage for the lowest paid group of the workmen cannot be less than Rs. 240/- per month per head. It was in 1961 that the floor level. of fair wage for the working class had been assessed approximately at about Rs. 280/- and that of the clerical staff at Rs. 380/- per month. The living wages would be much higher still. Since 1961 the cost of living index has gone very high and as such the amount of need-based minimum wage is greater still than what it was in 1961." The Union goes on to add : "The fact remains that the company is a fairly old one and it has sufficient resources to make available to its workmen at least fair wages with grades and incremental scale of pay on the basis of skill. It is high time that some progress should be made towards payment of living wages to the workmen by introducing grades and scales of pay with annual increments." This would show that the Woolcombers Workers' Union was claiming a basic fair wage, and not the bare minimum wage.' Nowhere in this written statement there is a clear demand for the bare minimum wage. On the whole the two written statements, in our view, seek to claim a basic fair wage. The statement of N. H. Khan, P.W. 1 "that the wages are very inadequate for their subsistence" again is a characterisation of the rates of wages in the factory at the time of the reference. Those words cannot spell out a demand for bare minimum wage. Expatiating on the workmen's demand for--the basic Wages claimed in their statement, N; H. Khan later said that "when we, say that our demand for wages is need-based, I mean that. my. children will have adequate food and proper clothing and expens`s for education. I mean by that we want minimum wages." Our attention was also drawn by Mr. Sanghi to the statement of G. Ghorai to this effect : "I have 7 de- pendents. One of them is of school going age. I cannot send her to school. I have two children, elder is the daughter. She is 6 years. My brother who is 15 is unemployed. He cannot be sent to school nor my daughter because of paucity of money. We, seven live in one room flat at a rent of Rs. 151- per month. My expenses only for marketing for daily needs e.g. vegetables, salt, onion, ginger come to Rs. 40/- per month. I do not buy any milk. My expenses for fuel and kerosene oil come to Rs. 16/- per month. I cannot make both ends meet by, my. monthly pay. I am in constant debt." This statement is again factual. It is perhaps a vivid description of the workers' plight .It the time of the reference of the dispute to the Tribunal. It does not, however, state that the basic wage claimed in the written statement is the bare minimum wage. It is true that N. H. Khan has said that we want minimum wage," but he has clarified what he meant by "minimum wag,--." According to him, minimum wage must include expenses for the education of the workers' children. But a basic wage which provides for the, education of the workers' children is riot the bare minimum wage: it-is fair wage. (See Kamani Metals and Alloys Ltd. v.,;. Their Workmen (supra) at page 58).

In fixing the basic wages, the Tribunal states: "In increasing basic wage as I am proposing to do I am quite alive to the fact that the said wage rate cannot be in any way fair wage let alone living wage but keeping in view the financial position of the company as it is now as also the nature of work they do along with their respective skill, I am increasing the wage-structure at the rates prescribed by me.

According to Shri Sanghi, this passage clearly indicates that the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage. We have already pointed out that the referring order of the West Bengal Government did not ask the Tribunal to fix the bare minimum wage. It is also necessary to point out at this stage that apart from the aforesaid passage in the award there is no reference at any other place therein that the bare minimum wage was being granted to the workmen. The financial capacity of an employer does not enter into the scale in the fixation of the bare minimum wage. But in fixing the basic wages the Tribunal has admittedly considered the financial capacity of the Woolcombers. It would suggest that the Tribunal has really fixed the basic fair wage. So when the Tribunal says in the aforesaid passage that the basic wages fixed by it "cannot be in any way fair wage" it does not really mean to say that it was fixing the bare minimum wage. It seems to us that the Tribunal really wanted to emphasise the fact that having regard to the financial capacity of the woolcombers it was not awarding more than the floor level of the fair wage to the workmen. So we do not agree with Shri Sanghi that the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage. Now, the absence of reasons in support of the conclusions is indeed a serious flaw in the award. However, the award cannot be set aside simply on that score, if there is evidence on the record in support of the Tribunal's conclusion. Accordingly we have gone through the entire evidence on record. It is now well-settled that basic wage and dearness allowance should be determined in the light of the industry- cum-region formula and the financial condition of an employer. So the evidence win have to be examined in the light of these two principles.

Shri Chaudhary's main grievance is that the Tribunal has made no endeavour to select for comparison concerns nearly similar to the line of business carried on by the Woolcombers. We are satisfied that it is a just grievance. The Tribunal has given no reasons in support of its conclusion regarding the fixation of the basic wages and dearness allowance. Nor has it compared the Woolcombers with any other concern. The workmen no doubt produced some oral evidence in respect of certain concerns. In his evidence Nabi Hasan Khan has sought to compare the Wooloombers with the Hindustan Lever Ltd., Exide Associated Battery, National Insulated Cable Co., Titaghar Paper Mill No. 2, Calcutta Electric Supply, Shyamnagar Works and Incheck Tyre. Those concerns are situated near the Woolombers' factory. The workmen also examined P.D- Rai Bhar from Hindustan Lever Ltd., Amrit Lal Karmakar from Titaghar Paper Mill No. 2 and Binoy Kumar Ganguli from Rolling and Steel Ropes Ltd. to show that the basic wages and dearness allowance payable to the workers of those concerns were much higher than the basic wages and dearness allowance paid to the workmen of the Woolcombers. It does not seem that the Tribunal has relied on the workmen's oral evidence. it has merely commented that presumably this evidence had been led for the purpose of "impressing upon me that the basic wages and dearness allowance of those concerns.... are much higher 'than those enjoyed by the employees of the Woolcombers."