Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The above brings out in clear profile that dearness allowance was granted to the petitioners to guard against future price hike not against price hike which had taken place between 1960 and 1983. Why was it so done? That was awarded for the simple reason that the price rise between 1960 and 1983 had been taken care of by the various awards of the revised pay scale which brought about complete neutralisation of erosion in wages.

20. The workmen were getting clearness allowance prior to April, 1983, which was known as variable dearness allowance. The V.D.A., was partly offsetting the erosion in wages. In contrast, thereto, the Tribunal awarded dearness allowance at central rate to the workmen. Thus all that the Tribunal did was that instead of variable dearness allowance it awarded dearness allowance at Central rates. There should be no difficulty in appreciating the expression why "dearness allowance at Central rate" was used That was in contra distinction to variable dearness allowance. Whereas in terms of the variable dearness allowance principle if the index number arose by ten or more points over 188 (base year 1960 equivalent to 100) the dearness allowance would rise for the succeeding half year by only 0.75 paise for each point. If the consumer price index number fell by ten or more points the variable dearness allowance would fall by 0-75 paise per point, but not below 188. This was variable dearness allowance (see paragraph 48 of the award). Ramand Singh, Chairman of the Second Wage Board fixed at Rs. 130 per point With this variation the variable dearness allowance continued. In terms of Central dearness allowance, the formula is that on the rise in price by 8 points one slab is allowed per month. This comes to roughly Rs. 3 88 per point. Thus whereas variable dearness allowance meant rise of 1.30 paise per point, the Central dearness allowance means 3,88 per point of a slab. This is what the Tribunal meant by awarding dearness allowance at Central Rate. It is obvious that the Tribunal did not award dearness allowance commencing from 1960. The Tribunal awarded dearness allowance from 1.4.1983. On what rate would be the dearness allowance paid? At Rs. 3.88 per point on the rise in price by one slab i.e. by 8 points. There should be no difficulty in understanding the word dearness allowance at Central rate was used to distinguish if from V.D.A. variable dearness allowance). The year 1960, the base year, had no relevance with it. In my view the submission urged on behalf of the workmen that the Tribunal awarded dearness allowance at Central rate calculated from 100 index number is eruditely untenable. If the Tribunal intended to make 1960 as starting point, there was no reason why the Tribunal should have observed at paragraph-43 (last sentence) that the future rise in price index would be taken care of by the dearness allowance. I would once more like to repeat the last sentence of paragraph-43 where the Tribunal directed that "to guard against future price hike dearness allowance at Central rate has been provided. "Thus, the dearness allowance at Central rate was to guard against future price hike not for the past. The future price hike would be the hall mark of the Central dearness allowance, not the price hike which took place between 1960-1983.

21. In my concluded opinion all that the Tribunal awarded was dearness allowance at Central rate which meant that dearness allowance would be paid to the workmen for every rise in price by 8 points for future rise in index number i.e., one slab would bring about rise of Rs. 3.88 per point, in contra distinction to the variable dearness allowance of point 1.30 for one slab of 10 points. This is the meaning of the award of the Tribunal. At Paragraph 64(2) the pay scale was to take effect from 1.4.1983 and the dearness allowance also was to take effect from the same date not from 1960. In future, rise in price, would mean payment of dearness allowance of Rs. 3.88 per point by rise of one slab.