JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the first respondent in Industrial Dispute No. 54 of 1979. That was an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner with reference to the demand for revision of wages to the workers employed in the canteen run by the second respondent. The issue referred for adjudication read as follows :
“Whether the demand for the revision of wages to the canteen workers is justified, if so to fix the quantum”.
2. The first respondent adverted to the question as to whether the workers employed in a canteen run by the second respondent would come within the definition of “workman” of the second respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. That the workers employed in the canteen run by the second respondent are workmen of the second respondent within the meaning of the definition of “workman” under the Act was not disputed by the second respondent and even before me there is no dispute over this aspect by Sri Vijay Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The bone of contention between the petitioner and the second respondent was, and is, as to whether the canteen workers would get the same wage-structure as the workmen employed by the second respondent in its productive wing. The first respondent adverted to the materials placed by the parties before him and he came to the conclusion that the canteen workers cannot get the same wage-structure as the workmen in the productive wing, and what they were getting at the relevant point of time does not require revision as demanded by them. However, taking note of the minimum wages fixed for workers in hotels and restaurants as borne out by exhibit M-1, he thought fit to award increase in the wage of the canteen workers ranging from Rs. 40 to Rs. 20. The increase in wages was given effect to from 1st April 1981. An award to the above effect was passed by the first respondent and that award, as stated above, is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.
3. Sri N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the first respondent proceeded on a fallacious thinking that the workers employed in the canteen run by the second respondent cannot be equated to workers under the second respondent and hence they could not get the same wage-structure. I do not think that this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The first respondent, after accepting the proposition that canteen workers could also be treated as workmen of the second respondent under the Act, proceeded to consider the question as to whether they could get the same wage-structure as the other workmen in the textile wing or productive wing of the second respondent. There could not be any dispute that various categories of workmen in an industry cannot get the same wage-structure, and there could be a classification, taking note of very many relevant factors applicable to each category of workmen. Straightaway, it is not possible to equate canteen workers to the workers in the other wings of the second respondent. Then the question is whether the factors which weighed with first respondent to negative the claim of the petitioner for revision of the wage of the canteen workers of the second respondent are totally irrelevant or extraneous. The first respondent points out that there are a number of settlements entered into by the petitioner with the managements in several other mills, and as well as with the management of the second respondent, and in none of those settlements, the wage-structure of canteen workers ever came up for consideration and got refixed. The petitioner filed exhibits W-1 to W-7 to say that in some of the textile mills at Coimbatore, the canteen workers have been treated as workers in the textile wing. The first respondent did advert to these documents, but has declined to act upon the same, because those mills were found to have large spindles and large number of workers and there could not be any equation of the second respondent with them. The first respondent also took note of the then State-wide agreement regarding the wage-structure of the textile workers and the omission in that agreement to treat the canteen workers as equable with the workers in the textile wing and giving them wage-structure on that basis. Another factor which has been taken note of by the first respondent is that the total turnover in the canteen was only Rs. 80,000 per year and if the canteen workers are to be given wages on par with the workers in the textile wing, that will involve an additional burden or Rs. 50,000 per year, which would be more than 60 per cent. of the total turnover and the first respondent has expressed an opinion that this would be unreasonable. Exhibit M-1 reflects the wages fixed by the Government in hotels and restaurants under the Minimum Wages Act. As already noted, the first respondent took guidance from this while allowing increase in wages for the canteen workers, ranging from Rs. 40 to 20. The first respondent has done the adjudication taking note of the above features. The above features cannot be stated to be irrelevant or extraneous on the question in issue. In my view, no principle as such on the question of fixation of wage-structure has been violated by the first respondent when he took note of the above features and passed the impugned award.
4. Sri N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the dearness allowance is being disbursed to the workmen in the textile or productive wing of the second respondent and this claim, though raised in the demand, has not been adverted to at all by the first respondent, when he rendered the impugned award. As rightly contended by Sri Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the second respondent, though there was a claim for dearness allowance in the claim statement, there was no specific issue relating to dearness allowance referred for adjudication and even assuming the issue relating to revision of wages, referred for adjudication, would take in this aspect of dearness allowance, yet no attempt was made by the petitioner before the first respondent to prosecute this claim as a separate and a distinct issue and the petitioner did not place any acceptable material on the question that the canteen workers should be separately paid dearness allowance. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the canteen workers have been given comprehensive emoluments, making an overall assessment of the aspect of wage-structure for them, including the fact that they are provided with food, and no acceptable evidence was placed on behalf of the petitioner on its claim for dearness allowance separately. I find that the petitioner did not venture to place any acceptable evidence on the question of separate dearness allowance. Exhibits W-1 to W-7 do not provide any guidelines at all on the question of dearness allowance. This Court, being called upon to exercise the power with regard to issue of a writ of certiorari over the impugned award, is obliged to assess as to whether the materials exposed before the first respondent supported the case of the petitioner on the question or as to whether the impugned award of the first respondent is vitiated by an error of law or other error on the face of the record. There is absolutely no ground made out, which would justify this Court in issuing a writ of certiorari. This Court is not supposed to convert itself into a court of appeal in the matter of exercise of powers for issue of a writ of certiorari. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.