Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We are not impressed by this argument. It is significant that the history of industrial adjudication in respect of catering establishments in New Delhi shows that restaurants and hotels have been grouped together for the purpose of one adjudication in the past. It appears that in 1950, a similar industrial dispute in respect of 14 catering establishments was referred to Mr. Dulat; amongst them were 3 Hotels and 11 Restaurants. In fact, some of the Restau- rants in the present proceedings were included in that reference. Besides, there is no doubt that though the nature of the service rendered by Hotels is in some particulars different from that of the Restaurants, both the establishments are constituents of a catering trade. In fact, Mr. Nirula is the Secretary of the Association whose membership is open to both Hotels and Restaurants. It will be noticed that all the Restaurants included in the refe- rence, except the Delhi Restaurant which is situated at Karolbagh, work in Connaught Place, and Claridge's Hotel is situated in Aurangzeb Road which is also an important locality. Thus, the situation of the Restaurants and the Hotels which have been included in the present reference shows that they are carrying on the same business in about the same locality and it is desirable that terms and conditions of service of the employees working in them should, as far as possible, be uniform. Such uniformity is not only conducive to peace and harmony amongst the employees and their employers, but would be helpful to the managements themselves because it would tend to avoid migration of labour from one establishment to another. It is true that it might have been possible to classify these restaurants according to the extent of their custom and their general financial position and standing in the trade : but no material has been produced before the Tribunal in that behalf and no attempt appears to have been made to suggest to the Tribunal that it would either be po- ssible or appropriate to make any such classification. That is why we think Mr. Pathak is not justified in attacking the award on the ground that in approaching the problem, it has considered all the establishments together. The next point which has been strenuously pressed before us by Mr. Pathak on behalf of the employers is that in dealing with the financial position of the managements, the Tribunal has committed an error inasmuch as it has assumed that the wine shops and the restaurants form part of the same establishment. It appears that in several cases the same employer conducts a restaurant and a wine shop; and the argument is that in determining the terms and conditions of service in these establishments, wine shops should have been treated as separate units,-distinct from the restaurants. The question as to whether industrial establishments owned by the same managements constitute separate units or one establishment has been considered by this Court on several occasions. .-'Several factors are relevant in deciding this question. But it is important to bear in mind that the significance or importance of these relevant factors would not be the same in each case; whether or not the two units constitute one establishment or are really two separate and independent units, must be decided on the facts of each case Mr. Pathak contends that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the restaurants cannot exist without the wine shops and that there is functional integrality between them. It may be conceded that the observation of the Tribunal that there is functional integrality between a restaurant and a wine shop and that the restaurants cannot exist without wine shops is not strictly accurate or correct. But the test of functional integrality or the test whether one unit can exist without the other though important in some cases, cannot be stressed in every case without having regard to the relevant facts of that case, and so, we are not prepared to accede to the argument that the absence of functional integrality and the fact that the two units can exist one without the other necessarily show that where they exist they are necessarily separate units and do not amount to one establishment. It is hardly necessary to deal with this point elaborately because this Court had occasion to examine this problem in several decisions in the past, vide Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1); Pratap Press, etc. v. Their Workmen(2); Pakshiraja Studios v. Its Workmen (3); South India Millowners' Association v. Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union(4); Fine Knitting Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Court (5) and D.C.M, Chemical Works v. lts Workmen(6).

That takes us to the question about the financial position of the different establishments. The Tribunal has carefully examined the relevant balancesheets and considered the profit and loss position of each establishment for the three years in respect of which bonus was claimed; they are 1956- 57, 57-58 and 58-59. In constructing a wage structure, industrial adjudication has undoubtedly to take into account the overall financial position of the employer because a scheme of wage structure including scales of increment is a long- term scheme and before it is framed the Tribunal must be satisfied that the burden imposed by the scheme would not be beyond the means of the employer. In regard to the minimum wage, no such consideration arises because it is the duty of an industrial employer to pay the basic minimum to his employees. But when a wage structure is constructed and it provides for increments, the financial position of the employer has to be borne in mind. The Tribunal has recognised this. principle and on examining the accounts produced before it, it has come to the conclusion that the establishments in question have shown uniform prosperity and all of them, except the Delhi Restaurant, can be properly characterised as established concerns. Besides, it has referred to the fact that in the Delhi region, there are various establishments which have pay scales for workmen, though, except for the award made by Mr. Dulat, there were no previous instances of pay scales having been introduced in restaurants in the awards or settlements cited before the Tribunal. It was, however, urged before the Tribunal and the same plea has been repeated before us that the possibility of the introduction of total prohibition in New Delhi should have been borne in mind in considering the problem of wage structure in the present proceedings. We do not think that the award made by the Tribunal in this case can be validly attached on the ground that the Tribunal refused to attach due importance to the apprehension expressed before it by the employers that total pro- hibitition may soon be introduced in New Delhi -and that may impair the prosperity of the trade. The Tribunal has noticed that even after the partial introduction of prohibition, the profits of the trade have not shown any adverse effect. On the contrary they show an upward tendency, and the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was any evidence adduced before it to justify the contention that in the very near future total prohibition would be introduced in New Delhi. It was urged by the employees that all indications pointed to the fact that total prohibition may not be introduced in New Delhi and the Tribunal thought, and we think rightly, that it would be idle to speculate in this matter; if in course of time, total prohibition is introduced and it materially affects the prosperity of the trade, it would be open to the employers to raise a dispute for the reduction in the wage structure and in case they are able to show that as a result of the introduction of total prohibition their financial position is weakened to such an extent that they cannot bear the burden of the wage structure directed by the present award, the matter may have to be examined on the merits. Therefore, we do not think that the hypothetical consideration that total prohibition may be introduced in the near future, can play any part in the decision of the wage problem in the present proceedings.

The main controversy in respect of the wage structure has centered round the problem of Dearness Allowance qua the waiters. Mr. Pathak has strenously contended that no D.A. should be paid to the waiters at all, because, he argues, each one of them gets Rs. 50/- to Rs. 60/- p.m. by way of tips in each one of these establishments. The Tribunal has taken the view that the tips earned by the waiters must be excluded from consideration in dealing with the question of D.A., and in support of this view it has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Their Workmen (1). Mr. Pathak contends that the Tribunal was obviously in error in relying upon this decision in support of its conclusion on the question of tips. This contention is well-founded. In the case of State Bank of India this Court was considering the question as to whether bonus could be said to be a part of remuneration within the meaning of that term under ss. 2 and 10 (1) (b) (2) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (unamended by Act XCV of 1956), and the decision was that in s. 10 the word " remuneration" has been used in its widest sense, and in that sense, it would undoubtedly include the profit bonus. It appears that in the course of discussion of the bar, the decision in the case of Mrottaslav v. Regent Street Florida Restaurant (2) was cited, and so, it had to be incidentally considered. That decision was in regard to tips and it held that when a customer gives a tip to a waiter, the money becomes the property of the latter. It was observed by this Court that the English decision itself showed that the word ""remuneration must be given its meaning with reference to the context in which the word occurs in the statute and that the said decision would not justify cutting down the amplitude of the expression used by the relevant provision of the Banking statute with which the Court was concerned. It is hardly necessary to point out that this decision cannot be cited as relevant in determining the question as to whether tips paid to waiters in hotels and restaurants should not be taken into account in dealing with the problem of D.A. On the other hand, it does appear that in Workmen of M/s. A. Fingo's Ltd. v. M/s. A. Fingo's Ltd., (3) the Labour Appellate Tribunal confirmed the award passed by the original Tribunal by which Rs. 15/- had been orderd to be deducted from the D.A. payable to boys and butlers. It was found in (1) (1959) 11 L.L.J. 205. (2) (1951) 2 K.B. 277. (3) (1953) L.A.C. 480.

that case on uncontradicted evidence that the value of the tips received by the boys and butlers would be about Rs. 15/- or so per head per month. Mr. Pathak contends that in the light -of this precedent, the Tribunal should have considered the amount of tips which waiters receive in hotels and restaurants and should not have directed D.A. to be paid to them at the flat rate of Rs. 35/- p.m. The learned Attorney-General has supported the finding of the Tribunal and has referred to an earlier award passed by the same Tribunal in an industrial dispute between the Management of the Marina Hotel and its workmen in 1958 where the Tribunal refused to consider the tips in dealing with the problem of wage structure including D.A. The said Tribunal took the same view when it pronounced its award in an industrial dispute between the management of the Hotel Ambassador and its employees in 1960. The learned Attorney- General also suggested that the compromise award between the Swiss Hotel and its employees reached on December 31, 1959, would tend to support his case that tips may not be taken into account in dealing with the question of D. A. The question thus raised before us needs to be carefully examined. The employees contend that the basis of D.A. is that the employer should make a suitable addition to the amount of basic wage in order to neutralise the rise in the cost of living and it is not open to him to contend that he is absolved from his liability to provide for either partial or complete neutralisation of the rise in the cost of living because his customers pay tips to his employees. Tips are paid not by the employer but by the customers and they are paid not only for the service received in the restaurant or the hotel, but for the promptness shown by the waiter and his smartness and efficiency. Besides it is urged that the amount of tips is variable and uncertain and so, it would be unreasonable to take such an uncertain and indefinite factor into account in fixing the amount of D. A. On the other hand, the employers contend that tips are paid as a matter of conventional requirement in all restaurants and hotels and they are paid not so much to the. waiters as individuals but as waiters working in a particular establishment. The tips thus received by the employees are incidental to their work as waiters and cannot be completely dissociated from it. In theory and in law, it may be true that the tips received by the waiters become their property, but they are received by them as an incident of their employment and so, it would be unreasonable not to take them into account in fixing the D. A. In our opinion, in dealing with this question, it would not be appropriate to adopt an academic or a doctrinaire approach. In considering the problem of wage structure in regard to hotels and restaurants, industrial adjudication has necessarily to adopt a pragmatic approach and in fixing the wage structure and the D. A., it has to take care to see that the legitimate demand of the employees is met without doing injustice to the employer and without acting unfairly by him. If the object of D. A. is to neutralise the rise in the cost of living, it would be purely doctrinaire to ignore altogether the fact that as waiters working in their respective establishments they invariably get some amount of tips from the customer , and so, we think it would not be right to treat the tips received by the waiters as being wholly irrelevant to the decision of the question about the matter of D. A. Similarly, it would not be right to make a calculation about the tips received and treat the said amount as a substitute, either whole or partial, for the D. A. itself. All that we can do is to bear in mind the fact that tips are received and make some suitable adjustment in that behalf It would, of course, not be right to treat these tips as substantially amounting to payments made by or on behalf of the employers for if that were so, logically, it may be open to the employers' to say that the said tips may be taken into account even while fixing a basic wage. That clearly is not and cannot be the employers case. It is true that the amount of tips may vary and in that sense be uncertain. But if evidence adduced by the parties satisfactorily proves that each waiter would invariably receive a certain amount of tips in the minimum, it would not be unfair or un just to take such a minimum amount into account in determining the quantum of D. A. at a flat rate. Such an approach, we think, would do no injustice to the employees' claim for D. A. and would be fair to the employers as well.