ORDER
R.R. Misra, J.
1. The British India Corporation Ltd., petitioner, is a Government of India Corporation and is running a Woollen Mill known as ‘Cawnpore Woollen Mills Branch, popularly known as Lal Imli’. In the Weaving Department of the said Mill there are employees known as Checkers, who were being paid wages on piece-rate and daily wage basis. The said Checkers raised a demand for payment of wages on monthly rate basis. Accordingly the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 82 of 1972 before the Industrial Tribunal. The said Tribunal gave an award holding that the workers were not entitled to monthly wages. Aggrieved against the award aforesaid, the workers filed a Writ Petn. No. 8093 of 1972 in this Court, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 3rd May 1978. The Industrial Tribunal was directed to rehear and decide the dispute according to law after giving the parties an opportunity to produce further evidence. In pursuance of the same, after remand the case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 63 of 1975. Parties filed fresh written statements and rejoinder affidavits. They also led evidence. This time also the Industrial Tribunal gave its award dated 26th February 1979 against the workmen. Consequently, the workmen filed another Writ Petn. No. 6104 of 1979, which was allowed by this Court on 26th April 1983 and the case was remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal with directions to decide the dispute afresh after taking into consideration the entire relevant materials on record.
2. This time after remand one of witnesses examined “before the Industrial Tribunal by the management was Sri V.J. Rao. On a consideration of the materials on record the Industrial Tribunal gave its award on 3rd August 1983 and held as follows:
…Accordingly, I direct that the Checkers will be placed on monthly rate system with effect from 18th March 1972 and the benefits accruing in consequence of this will be paid and made available to them within a month of the Award became enforceable.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid award the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Industrial Tribunal has not gone into the nature of the duties and the difference of duties of Perchers and Checkers. In this connection he submitted that the Perchers do the same work which is done by Checkers but at two stages. The Perchers work while the cloth is still on loom and their duty is to find out the defects and remove them. The Checkers do the same work when cloth is taken out of loom. They also find out the defects in the cloth and remove the same. This feet was admitted by Sri V.J. Rao in his statement in following words, which is at pages 90 and 91 of the paper book (Annexure 10 to the writ petition):
The Percher category of workmen get wages on monthly basis. To start with Perchers were Checkers. The Perchers’ duty is to examine the cloth on parcha (Roller) while the duty of the Checker is to check cloth when it is in the process of being woven. The duties of Checkers and Perchers are similar but at different stages. When a Percher goes on leave, senior Checker works in his place.
4. Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh was examined n behalf of the employers before the Industrial Tribunal. His statement is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. At page 93 of paper book he has stated that when cloth is being woven on the loom the first responsibility for the process is that of weaver. When weaver has woven 6″ of cloth on the loom the cloth after a fresh warp is gated on the loom is checked by the Checker. In case the Checker finds any defect in the woven cloth at this stage of checking on the warp or weft, he himself corrects the warp or weft. After a cloth has been woven then the piece is sent to the perching section of the mill for final perching done by two Perchers. If the Perchers discover any defect in the piece, they call the weaver, the checker or mistri who ever is responsible for the defect and some times the weft mistri and ask them to remove the defects. He further stated; “When a Percher goes on leave then his substitute is appointed from amongst the Checkers.”
5. Having regard to the above and the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, I find that the said finding is based merely on appreciation of evidence. Admittedly, one of the witnesses of the employer has admitted in his statement before the Industrial Tribunal that the work of both category of employees, i.e. perchers and checkers, is similar. The Industrial Tribunal has held that the work of these two categories of workmen is similar and the checkers are also entitled to be paid on monthly rate basis. This decision of the Industrial Tribunal accords with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. 1986-I-LLJ-134 where under it has been held by the Supreme Court that similar nature of duties should be paid the same salary and allowances irrespective of the feet as to whether they are working as casual labourers or as permanent employees. The aforesaid dictum in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli (supra) was reinforced by the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief 1986-I LLJ-403 following the principle underlying the aforesaid decision and by further holding that Govt. Undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and they are obliged to pay salary and allowances to the persons performing similar work on the basis of equal pay for equal work. In this case the work was said to be identical only after the Supreme Court enforced the said formula. A similar case is reported in P. Sevita v. Union of India 1986-I-LLJ-79. The Supreme Court held that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently. The said case heavily relied on the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India 1982-I-LLJ-344 which has taken similar view. In this connection Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana may also be noticed where it has been held that if the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is attracted. The cae of Daily R.C. Labour P. & T. Department v. Union of India 1988-I-LLJ-370 is another case in point and takes a similar view. In view of the above, I find that the first submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has got no substance and is liable to be rejected.
6. The second submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the burden of proving that the work of checkers and perchers was similar lies on the workers which they have failed to discharge. For this submission, reliance was placed on a case V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court 1982 Lab IC 551 (All) and Anr. case of Airtech Pvt. Ltd. v. State (1984) 49 Fac LR 38 (All). In the case of V.K. Raj Industries (supra), the Labour Court had allowed a reference regarding termination of services of an employee holding that the employers have not discharged the burden of proving that the termination was illegal. It is pertinent to note that in this case neither the employer nor worker gave evidence before the Labour Court But the Labour Court held that since burden of proof of the issue regarding termination lay, on the employer, hence it gave award in favour of workmen. The Court held that the burden of proving the legality of the order of termination lay on the workmen and since neither workmen nor employer gave any evidence the Tribunal could not give award in favour of workman on the basis of burden of proof. In the second case of Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Court held that since burden of proving the illegality in the order of termination lies on the workman, he will start evidence first. Both the cases have no relevance to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the present case the workers have discharged the burden of proof which lay on them. It is not necessary that such burden must be discharged by positive evidence of workmen themselves. The workmen could rely on the evidence given by the employer and prove certain facts.
7. There is difference between onus of proof and burden of proof. Onus of proof is always fixed whereas burden of proof shifts. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalwa Devadattam v. Union of India the question of onus probandi is certainly important in the early stages of a case. In case no evidence at all is led on the question in dispute by either side, the party on whom the onus lies to prove certain fact must fail. Where however evidence has been led by the contesting parties on the mooted question, abstract considerations of onus are out of place and in such a situation truth or otherwise of the case must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties. In the present case the onus of proving that the nature of duties of checkers and perchers were the same, no doubt lay on the workmen. But after the evidence regarding the same has been led in the case, the workmen can rely on the evidence of the employers themselves for the decision of the said issue. Thus the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the onus of proof is devoid of substance.
8. The last submission made on behalf of the petitioner is the mode of payment. It has been urged that by changing the mode of payment from daily basis to monthly basis the Industrial Tribunal has changed the structure and such a change is bad in view of the principle of region-cum-industry formula. In support of this submission learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the statement of Sri U.C. Shukla (Annexure-13 to the petition) and on the statement of Sri K.L. Mehrotra (Annexure-14 to the petition). They are witnesses of employer. The statement of Sri U.C. Shukla is at page 100 of Annexure-13 to the petition. He has stated that in Kanpur Textile Ltd. there is a category known as pic checkers and the checkers are paid on daily rate basis. He has admitted that in cotton textile mills there are no checkers and it is the duty of the weavers to remove the defects. Woollen cloth is much costlier than cotton cloth, hence in woollen mills besides checkers, perchers are also employed. His statement is of no relevance. Therefore, comparison of two categories cannot be made. Similar is the statement of Sri. K.N. Mehrotra. It may further be stated that this was not the case of wage revision but was only a case of mode of payment of wages i.e. whether the payment should be made on monthly basis or on daily rate basis. The formula of industry-cum-region basis has no application to such situation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following cases:
(1) Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. The Workmen 1972-I-LLJ-576.
(2) Wool combers of India Ltd. v. Wool combers Workers Union 1974-I-LU-138.
(3) Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. v. Workmen 1964-I-LU-342.
All these cases only state that while revising the wages in an industry the formula of region-cum-industry should be kept in mind. As stated earlier in the present case there was no question of revising the wages in the industry. It was only a case of fixation of wages on monthly basis or daily rate basis. Revision of wages is quite different than fixation of wages. Hence the cases relied on by the petitioner are wholly irrelevant. This last submission made on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, has also got no force.
9. Thus all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have got no force and are here by rejected. No other point was pressed. Thus, to my mind, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 500/- in this case. Interim order granted in the case is hereby vacated.