JUDGMENT
M.P. Varma, J.
1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is a factory at Dumraon in the district of Bhojpur. This is a textiles mill, known as Dumraon Textiles Limited. The factory has employed several hundred workers of various categories in different departments.
2. There was a dispute between the workmen and the management and the Government, under its notification referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The reference case before the Tribunal is still pending.
3. In the mean time, the Government constituted a Tripartite Wage Committee (Textile Industry) consisting of two representatives of the Textile Mills and two of the workmen union. The respondent No. 1, Joint Commissioner of Labour was nominated as the convenor of the Committee. A copy of the resolution dated 27.12.1979, passed by the Government constituting the committee has been filed as annexure 4 to this application.
4. Incidentally it may be noted that this Wage Committee i.e., the Tripartite Committee was constituted to determine amongst others, whether wage-structure can uniformly be adopted in all the textile mills under the State of Bihar and when the wage structure related to the work-load and also the production in each individual factory, what would be the norm to measure the same for adoption thereof in relation to wage-cum-allowance based on productivity.
5. The Wage Committee held a few meetings on different dates. It is said that on behalf of the workmen a demand was raised for grant of interim increase of Rs. 100/- per month to all the employees in all the Textile mills. The wage committee, i.e., respondent No. 3, in its meeting, held on 10th March, 1980 granted the interim relief (vide annexure 2) and on the basis of the same respondent No. 1 issued direction to all the Textile mills including the petitioner for implementation of the same, as per orders contained in annexure ‘1’. The orders in question speak of making payment of Rs. 52/- per month as extra wages to the employees from retrospective effect, i.e., from 1st of September, 1980. In this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the recommendation, as contained in annexure ‘2’ and also to quash the direction issued by respondent No. 1, as contained in annexure 1 to this petition and/or to prohibit the respondent from enforcing the recommendation made by respondent No. 3, the Tripartite Wage Committee.
6. The case of the petitioner is that it objected to the inclusion of the determination of the wage structure in the wage-committee, as the question relating to the wage structure was pending before the Industrial Tribunal.
7. In the given circumstances, a question has arisen whether the Tripartite Wage Committee has any jurisdiction to allow an increase in the wages at such uniform rate in all the Textile mills as an interim measure without determining the reference whether the same wage-structure will at all be feasible in all the Industries and without taking into consideration the well-settled principle for revision and/or for fixation of existing wage scale keeping in view the special circumstances of individual concerned.
8. It is also the case of the petitioner that it has already made an increase in the wage of the employees by Rs. 39/- p.m. (i.e., Rs. 1.53 P. per day) some time in November, 1979, which fact the wage committee while making the aforesaid recommendation failed to take notice of, inasmuch as the committee was not justified in recommending for an increase in the wage rate. It has also been argued that the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Tripartite Wage Committee further did not take into consideration the shape and size or the condition operating with regard to financial capacity of the individual textile mills and that in such recommendation for interim increase in grant is devoid of substance. It has also been submitted that the wage committee did not look into the objections raised by the petitioner. The submission is that the petitioner, in fact, had filed the objection before the committee respondent No. 3, a true copy of which has been enclosed as annexure 5 forming part of this application.
9. Sri Kamla Pati Singh, on the other hand has submitted that the representatives of the Textile Mills owners were invited to the Conference table in the meeting convened by respondent No. 1 the Joint Commissioner of Labour and an agreement was arrived at for an interim increase in workmen’s wages. The learned Counsel has urged that in view of the agreement, as would be evident from annexure 2, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the same knocking at the door of the writ court. However, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent.
10. This however, cannot be denied by the counsel for the respondents that the reference to the Wage Board i.e. the Tripartite Committee (respondent No. 3) was with regard to the same wage-structure, to be adopted in all the textile mills in the State of Bihar and not for grant of any interim relief, as has been recommended by the Wage Committee.
11. I have examined the contents of annexure 2. Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ranen Ray has taken me through the entire documents. No doubt it contained the recommendation of the Wage Committee, but on perusal thereof, I feel convinced, as contended by Mr. Ray, to hold that the management of the mills had never conceded to the grant of interim increase, rather they raised protest to such course of action. The members representing the mills in an unequivocal term said that if the committee would agree for such an increase for grant of any interim relief, they would, in that situation persuade the mill-owners for acceptance of such terms, if there be any recommendation. It has been rightly argued that such a conditional acceptance does not amount to any voluntary agreement, much less, conceding the demand made by the workmen.
12. Apart from it Mr. Ray has further rightly argued that the issue was never referred to the committee respondent No. 3 and taking of decision of such vital issue not having been brought and put in its domain, is absolutely without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the respondents could not controvert the situation. It may be pertinent to note that with regard to grant of increase in the pay-scale by the petitioner as given in November, 1979, the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Kamla Pati Singh took several adjournments to get instruction from the Department concerned, but he could not get any.
13. Be that as it may since I find and hold that the orders contained in annexure ‘1’ based on the recommendation of the Wage Committee as contained in annexure ‘2’ is without jurisdiction, it is not necessary for me to decide if the increase given by the petitioner covers the amount recommended by the Wage Committee. Since the orders contained in annexures 1 and 2 are without jurisdiction, the same are hereby quashed. But in the circumstances of the case, I do not propose to pass any orders as to costs.