Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"will not work out to a sum in excess of Rs. 10,000 in a year in aggregate if it was to be calculated in a reasonable manner."

7. After these observations, the tribunal proceeded to lay down the wage-scales and dearness allowance for each of the four categories of employees mentioned above. After providing for wages-scales and dearness allowance, the tribunal stated in Para. 17 of the award :

"I have . . . fixed the wage-scales by which the total emoluments received by these workers would be at least the same as received by similar type of persons in other comparable concerns."

8. The various statements made in the award, and particularly the last statement which we have quoted above, make it obediently clear that the total emoluments which tribunal intended to award to the aggrieved employees, and which the tribunal thought it had actually awarded, were "at least the same" as the total emoluments received by corresponding categories of employees in the four concerns which were found by the tribunal to be comparable, viz., Taraporewalla Sons & Co., Popular Book Depot, New Book Company and International Book House. If the total emoluments allowed by the operative part of the award were the same as the total emoluments available to the employees of the four comparable concerns or even if they were not substantially lower, we would not have found it necessary to interfere with the award. It was brought out before us, however, that the emoluments which have been granted to the employees of the respondent-concerns, whether by way of wage-scales and dearness allowance, or by way of gratuity and sickness leave, are substantially lower than the emoluments received by the employees of the comparable concerns. That the emoluments granted by the award are substantially lower is established on the basis of the information found in the tabular statement, Ex. U. 1, which had been produced before the tribunal.

17. We thus find that there is a patent disparity between the benefits which the tribunal intended to confer on the employees of the respondent-concerns and the benefits which the tribunal has actually conferred in the operative part of the award. That disparity must be attributed to some miscalculation or misapprehension on the part of the tribunal. This is clear from the fact that after giving details of the pay-scales and dearness allowance in Para. 16 of the award, the tribunal stated in Para. 17 that the total emoluments which were given by the award to the employees were "at least the same" as those received by the employees of the four comparable concerns. It appears to us that the award thus suffers from a patent error and it is, therefore, necessary to set it aside and remand the dispute to the tribunal, in order that the tribunal may make an award whose operative provisions shall be in conformity with the intention declared by the tribunal of giving wage scales and other emoluments to the aggrieved employees which shall not be inferior to those received by similar categories of workers in the comparable concerns. As indicated above, there are two or three supplementary reasons for setting aside the award. They are that one of the terms of the scheme of gratuity runs counter to the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above, that there is an ambiguity with regard to the term "wages" in the part of the award relating to sick leave, and that the tribunal had failed through over sight to make any provision in respect of the employees' demand for accumulation of sick leave.

18. On behalf of the respondent-concerns Sri Narayanaswami argued that the region-cum-industry basis which has been recommended by the Supreme Court for the fixation of pay-scales cannot be looked upon as a provision of law, that what the tribunal is expected to do is to keep that basis in mind while fixing pay-scales, and that if in a particular case the tribunal keeps that basis in mind but decides in the exercise of its discretion to award lower pay-scales than those which prevail in similar industries in the same region, it is not open to the High Court to interfere with the exercise of that discretion under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The answer to Sri Narayanaswami is that the wholesome principle on which he relies does not apply to the present case. The tribunal in the present case did not in fact decide that the aggrieved employees should be awarded pay-scales and other emoluments different from, and lower than, those available to employees in similar industries in the same region. On the contrary, it is clear from the award that the tribunal intended to give to the aggrieved employees, and thought that it had given to the aggrieved employees, pay-scales and other emoluments which were "at least the same" as those received by similar employees in comparable concerns. We are interfering with this award, not in order to replace the tribunal's discretion with our own, but in order that what was decided by the tribunal by the exercise of its discretion should be made effective.