{"id":104362,"date":"1962-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962"},"modified":"2018-08-10T06:41:00","modified_gmt":"2018-08-10T01:11:00","slug":"management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962","title":{"rendered":"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical … vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical … vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMANAGEMENT OF THE D.C.M. CHEMICAL WORKS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHEIR WORKMEN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n01\/03\/1962\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute--Company  undertaking  several  concerns\nIf--independent units--Wage structure--Incremental  scales--\nMinimum\t  wage\tand  fair  wage,  distinction--Gratuity\t  in\naddition to  Provident Fund--Scheme for--If can be framed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  disputes between the appellant, the management  of\t the\nD.C.M.\tChemical Works which was a constituent unit  of\t the\nDelhi Cloth and General Mills Limited (the Company), and its\nworkmen\t related, inter alia, to wage scales  and  gratuity.\nThe workmen claimed that the chemical works was an  integral\npart of the Company and, therefore, the over-all position of\nthe Company should be taken into account in fixing the wage-\nstructure.  The Industrial Tribunal to which the matter\t was\nreferred  held\tthat in the circumstances of  the  case\t the\nchemical works should be treated as an independent unit\t and\nthat  the  wage-structure etc.. could not be  fixed  on\t the\nbasis  of the over. all position of the Company.  The  facts\nshowed\tthat  the  high the Company  was  a  single  limited\nconcern\t owning and controlling various industrial units  of\ndifferent kinds under it.  There were certain features which\nwent to show that the various undertakings carried on by the\nCompany\t had been treated as independent concerns and  could\nnot  lead  to the conclusion that they were  one  integrated\nwhole.\t It was found that (i) each unit had separate  books\nof  account and separate profit and loss account, (ii)\teach\nunit  had  separate  muster rolls  for\tits  employees,\t and\ntransfers from one unit to the other usually took place with\nthe consent of the employees concerned, (iii) each unit\t had\nits own separate wages and dearness allowance and bonus\t was\nalso paid differently in each concern,(iv) where sales\ttook\nplace from one unit to another they were at market price and\nnot  at cost price, and (v) each unit had its  own  separate\nmanagement.  The evidence showed that throughout the  course\nof  its\t existence since 1942 the chemical  works  had\tmade\nprofits only in two years and that for the rest of the\ttime\nit  had been making losses which had to be met by  the\tCom-\npany out of the profits of other units.\nHeld, that on the facts found in the present case, there was\nno nexus of integration between different lines of  business\ncarried on by the Company and that the Tribunal was right in\n 517\nits  conclusion that the chemical works was' an\t independent\nunit and that, therefore, in fixing the wage structure etc.,\none  had to look to the position of the chemical works\tonly\nand could not integrate it with other units.\nThe  Associated Cement Companies Limited,  Chaibassa  Cement\nWorks,Jhinkpani\t v. Their Workmen,<\/a> (1960) 1 S.C.R.  T,\t703,\nPratap\tPress etc. v. Workmen, (1960) 1 L.L.J. 497,  Pakshi-\nraja  Studios  V.  Workmen, (1961) 2 L.L.J.  380  and  Hony.\nSecretary, South India Milloumers'Association v.  Secretary,\nDistrict  Coimbatore District Textile Workmen Union,<\/a>  (1962)\n(2) S.C.R. (Supp.) p. 926 relied on.\nFine  Knitting Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Court, Bombay,<\/a>  (1962)\n(3) S.C.R. (Supp.) p. 196, applied.\nHeld,  further, that in making a direction for the  fixation\nof  an\tincreased  fair wage on an  incremental\t scale,\t the\npresent financial condition of the concern and its stability\nare both necessary to be considered.\nThere  is a difference between a minimum wage and fair\twage\nwhich  is above the bare minimum wage.\tIn the\tformer\tcase\nthe  tribunal  could insist that the employer  paid  minimum\nwages even out of capital.\nMessrs Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen,<\/a> (1958) S.C.R.\n651, referred to.\nHeld,  also, that it is well settled that both\tgratuity  As\nwell  as  provident fund schemes can be framed in  the\tsame\nconcern if its financial position allows it, and that though\nthe  financial position of the chemical works had  not\tbeen\nfound to be good and stable enough to warrant an incremental\nwage structure, the direction given by the Tribunal for\t the\nframing of a gratuity scheme was not erroneous, as it was  a\nlong term provision and there was no reason to suppose\tthat\nin the long run the appellant would not be in a\t flourishing\ncondition.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 4 and 5  of
\n1962.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the award dated\tJanuary\t 25,
\n1960,  of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.  40  of
\n1957.\n<\/p>\n
A.V.   Viswanatha   Sastri,   A.   N.\tSinha,\t and   S.
\nVenkatakri,shnan for the appellant (in C.A. No. 4 of 62) and
\nthe respondent (in C.A. No. 5 of 1962).\n<\/p>\n
518<\/span><\/p>\n
A.S.  B. Chari.\t R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C.\t Agarwala
\nand M.K. , Ramamurthi for the respondents (in C.A. No. 4  of\n<\/p>\n
62) and the appellants (in C.A. No. 5 of 62).
\n1962.  March 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nWANCHOO, J.-These two appeals by special leave arise out  of
\nthe  same award-of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, and\twill
\nbe  dealt with together.  Appeal No. 4 is by the  management
\nof  the D.C.M. Chemical Works while appeal No. 5 is  by\t the
\nworkmen.  The management hereinafter will be referred to  as
\nthe  appellant\tfor the purposes of both  appeals  and\tthe-
\nworkmen will be referred to as respondents.  A dispute arose
\nbetween\t  the  parties\twith  respect  to  various   matters
\nincluding wage scales, dearness allowance and gratuity.\t  As
\nthe  parties could not come to terms it was referred to\t the
\nindustrial tribunal for adjudication and there were as\tmany
\nas eleven issues which were the subject-matter of reference.
\nThe  main  point however on which the parties  differed\t was
\nwhether\t in  determining  the  wage-structure  etc.  of\t the
\nchemical  works\t which is a constituent unit  of  the  Delhi
\nCloth  and  General Mills Limited  (hereinafter\t called\t the
\nCompany),  the\tover-all position of the Company  should  be
\ntaken  into account or only the position of this  one  unit,
\nnamely, the chemical works.  The respondents contended\tthat
\nthe  chemical works was an integral part of the Company\t and
\ntherefore  the\tover-all position of the Company  should  be
\ntaken  into  account  and  the\twage-structure\tetc.   fixed
\naccordingly;  in  particular it was pointed out\t that  there
\nwere differences in wage-structure etc. between the  various
\nunits  which  were controlled and owned by the\tCompany\t and
\nwhich  were all situate in the same area in Delhi  and\tthat
\nthose\tdifferences  should  be\t eliminated  and   all\t the
\nenterprises  in\t Delhi controlled by the Company  should  be
\ntreated\t on  the  same\tfooting.   On  the  other  band\t the
\ncontention of the
\n  519<\/span>
\nappellant was that though the chemical works was one unit of
\na large number of industries controlled by the Company, some
\nof which were situate in the same area in Delhi, the various
\nunits  were independent industries and each unit had  to  be
\nconsidered on its own, and the wage-structure etc. fixed  on
\nthe  basis  of\tthe  financial position\t of  each  unit\t ;in
\nparticular, it was urged that two of the main units in Delhi
\nwere  the textile mills run by the Company and the claim  of
\nthe  respondents  that\tthe chemical  works  should  in\t all
\nmatters\t be  treated  on a par with the\t textile  units\t was
\nuntenable,  on\tthe ground, among others, that it  would  be
\nagainst the principle of industry-cum-region.  Before there-
\nfore  we  take up the particular matters raised in  the\t two
\nappeals\t before us, we shall first have to consider  whether
\nthe  claim of the respondents that the overall\tposition  of
\nthe Company should be taken into account in fixing the wage-
\nstructure etc. of the chemical works is sound ; for if\tthat
\nposition is accepted, the award may have to be set aside  as
\nthe tribunal has held that in the circumstances of this case
\nthe chemical works should be treated as an independent\tunit
\nand that the wage-structure etc. therein cannot be fixed  on
\nthe basis of the over-all position of the Company.
\nIn  order to appreciate the various contentions put  forward
\nby  the\t parties on this question it may be useful  to\tlook
\ninto  the history of the Company and how it has grown.\t The
\nCompany came into existence in 1889 with a modest capital of
\nabout  Rs.  10 lacs.  It seems that the policy of  those  in
\ncontrol of the Company was to slough back a substantial part
\nof  the\t profits into the industry itself and  to  create  a
\nreserve\t for that purpose.  Originally the  Company  started
\nwith  a textile mill but in course of time with the help  of
\nsloughed  back\tprofits\t and also with the  aid\t of  further
\ncapital,  the  Com.  pany set up a  large  number  of  other
\nindustrial
\n520<\/span>
\nconcerns  in  Delhi  and elsewhere.  In\t Delhi\titself,\t the
\nCompany now has the Delhi Cloth Mills, the Swatantra  Bharat
\nMills  which  are  both textile concerns,  the\tD.C.M.\tTent
\nFactory\t established  in 1940, and the chemical\t works\twith
\nwhich  we  are concerned in the present\t appeals.   Besides,
\nthere are other industrial concerns owned and controlled  by
\nthe Company outside Delhi, as for example, the Daurala Sugar
\nWorks  established  in 1932, the Lyallpur Cotton  Mills\t in’
\n1934 and the Mawans Sugar Works in 1940.\n<\/p>\n
The chemical works were started in 1942 and the only line of
\nproduction  at\tthat time was sulphuric acid.  In  1943,  an
\nalum  plant  was  set up, in 1944 a soap plant,\t in  1945  a
\nsuperphosphate\tplant and in 1946 a contact  sulphuric\tacid
\nplant.\tIn 1. 947 a vanaspati plant was established and also
\na power house was erected in order to meet the\trequirements
\nof the vanaspati plant.\t In 1948-49 a caustic soda plant was
\nadded so that what began as modest subsidiary to the textile
\nmills  has  now\t expanded  into\t a  full  fledged  unit\t for
\nproduction  of chemicals and vanaspati.\t The  total  capital
\nwhich  was  originally about Rs. 10 lacs  when\tthe  Company
\nstarted in 1889 has now grown to Rs. 4 crores.\tEven. so the
\ncapital employed in the chemical works has always been found
\nfrom the reserves of the Company and is now of the order  of
\nover  a crore.\tIt is also not in dispute that\tvery  little
\nout  of the production of the chemical works is used in\t the
\ntextile\t mills\tof the Company and that by far most  of\t the
\nproduction  is\tsold in the open market.  Further  even\t the
\nsmall part of the production that is used by other units  is
\ncharged\t at market rates and not at cost price, so that\t for
\nall practical purposes the chemical works is being run as an
\nindependent unit.\n<\/p>\n
Certain\t features  have\t however been  pointed\tout  by\t the
\nrespondents to show that the over-all
\n 521<\/span>
\nposition  of  the Company should be taken  into\t account  in
\ndetermining  the wage-structure etc. of the  chemical  works
\nwhich  should be treated as an integral part of\t the  entire
\nindustry  of  all kinds carried on by  the  Company.   These
\nfeatures are : no unit has any separate paid up capital\t and
\nthere  is no separate depreciation fund or reserve fund\t for
\neach unit ; the Company publishes one balance-sheet  showing
\nthe total profits of all the undertakings after taking\tinto
\naccount\t  losses   incurred  in\t any   undertaking   ;\t the
\nshareholders of the Company are the shareholders in all\t the
\nunit,%\t; the Company has got one board of directors  and  a
\ncommon\tmanaging agency and the policy of the various  units
\nis  determine on the basis of the Company as one  integrated
\nunit; the profits of the Company are all pooled together and
\nthe  profits  in  any  undertaking  are\t not  earmarked\t for
\nexpenditure in that undertaking; the dividends are paid from
\nto  profits  of the Company as a whole; the  Company  has  a
\nsingle provident fund for all its employees in all its units
\nand  the  Company  has established various  units  from\t the
\nprofits\t earned\t by the Company as a whole in the  past\t and
\nincometax is paid on the entire profits of the Company\tmade
\nby  all the units after taking into account the\t losses,  if
\nany,  incurred by a particular unit.  It is urged  therefore
\non  behalf  of\tthe  respondents  that\tthese  features\t are
\nsufficient  to establish that all the  different  industries
\ncarried\t on  by\t the Company are one  integrated  whole\t and
\ntherefore in fixing the wage-structure etc. for the chemical
\nworks  this overall position should be taken  into  account.
\nThere is however in our opinion a’very cogent reply to these
\nfeatures pointed out on behalf of the respondents, and\tthat
\nis  that the Company is a single limited concern owning\t and
\ncontrolling  various  industrial units\tof  different  kinds
\nunder it and therefore under the Company Law as the  Company
\nis  on* legal entity these features are bound to  be  common
\nand may not to enough to lead to the conclusion ,that
\n522<\/span>
\nthe  various undertakings carried on by the Company are\t one
\nintegrated  whole and therefore when wagestructure etc.\t has
\nto  be fixed in any particular. unit the  over-all  position
\nof’ the Company as a whole must be taken into account.
\nOn the other hand there are certain features which have been
\npointed,  out by the tribunal and which are not\t in  dispute
\nwhich  go  to show that the Company has\t been  treating\t its
\nvarious\t units as independent concerns in  actual  practice.
\nEach unit has separate books of account and separate  profit
\nand  loss  account showing how each particular\tbusiness  is
\nfaring.\t  Each\tunit  has  separate  muster-rolls  for\t its
\nemployees  and\ttransfers from one unit to the\tother,\teven
\nwhere  such transfers are possible considering\tthe  utterly
\ndifferent kinds of business that the Company is carrying on,
\nusually\t take  place  with  the\t consent  of  the  employees
\nconcerned.  Further each unit has got its own separate wages
\nand   separate\tdearness  allowance  and   other   different
\nallowances  and\t bonus\tis also\t paid  differently  in\teach
\nconcern.  Further even where sales take place from one\tunit
\nto  another they take place at market rate and not  at\tcost
\nprice  and  are\t adjusted  on this basis  in  the  books  of
\naccount.  Lastly though there is a common board of directors
\nand  a common managing agency of the Company. each unit\t has
\nits  own  separate management as it is bound to be  for\t the
\nbusiness  carried  on by different units is  in\t many  cases
\nutterly different.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\ton  these  facts that we have  to  see\twhether\t the
\nchemical  works\t can be said to be so  integrated  with\t the
\nother units of the Company as to justify the conclusion that
\nit  is\tpart of the same business, and the  entire  business
\ncarried\t on the Company is one establishment, and  therefore
\nit  would  not be right to  have  different  wage-structure,
\ndear_ ness allowance, etc., in the same establishment.\n<\/p>\n
 523<\/span><\/p>\n
This matter was considered by this Court in connection\twith
\nJay-off in The Associated Cement Companies Limited, Chaibasa
\nCement\tWorks,\tJhinkpani v. Their Workmen<\/a>(1),\twhere  tests
\nwere laid down for determining whether a particular unit  is
\npart  of  a  bigger  establishment.   These  tests  included
\ngeographical proximity, unity of ownership,. management\t and
\ncontrol,  unity\t of employment and  conditions\tof  service,
\nfunctional integrality and general unity of purpose.  But it
\nwas  pointed out that it is was impossible to lay  down\t any
\none  test as an absolute and invariable test for  all  cases
\nand the real purpose of these tests was to find out the true
\nrelation  between the parts, branches, units.  If  in  their
\ntrue relation they constitute one integrated whole, then the
\nestablishment  is  one\t; if on the  contrary  they  do\t not
\nconstitute  one\t integrated  whole,  each  unit\t is  then  a
\nseparate  unit.\t How the relation between the units will  be
\njudged\tmust depend on the facts proved.  Thus in  one\tcase
\nthe  unity of ownership, management and control may  be\t the
\nimportant test, in another case, functional integrality,  or
\ngeneral\t unity\tmay  be the important  test;  and  in  still
\nanother\t case,\tthe  important\ttest may  be  the  unity  of
\nemployment.  It\t was pointed out that in a large  number  of
\ncases several tests may fall for consideration atthe   same
\ntime  and  the\tdifficulty of applying\tthese  tests  arises
\nbecause\t  of   the   complexities   of\t modern\t  industrial
\norganization.  The matter was considered again by this Court
\nin  Pratap Press etc. v. Workmen (2), Pakshiraj\t Studios  v.
\nWorkmen(3)   Hony.   Secretary,\t South\t India\t Millowners’
\nAssociation’  v.  Secretary,  District\tCoimbatore  District
\nTextile\t Workmen  Union<\/a> (4) and Fine Knitting  Co.  Ltd.  v.
\nIndustrial  Court, Bombay<\/a>(4). In the case of  Fine  Knitting
\nCo.,  this Court was considering one limited company but  it
\nwas  held  in the circumstances that even though  there\t was
\nunity of ownership, management and control the two parts  of
\nthe same concern
\n(1)  [1960] 1 S.C.R. 703.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1961] 2 L. L. J. 380.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1960] 1 L.L. J. 497
\n(4)  C. A. 4 IQ of 1960, decided on 1-2-62.\n<\/p>\n
(5) C.A. 306 of 1961. decided on 15-2-1962.\n<\/p>\n
524<\/span><\/p>\n
different  units  as  there was\t no  functional\t integrality
\nbetween\t them.\t It is on the basis of these tests  that  we
\nhave  to  consider  whether the tribunal was  right  in\t its
\nconclusion  that the chemical works has to be treated as  an
\nindependent unit.\n<\/p>\n
The common features which have been emphasized on behalf  of
\nthe  respondents  are  in our  opinion\tclearly\t capable  of
\nexplanation  on\t the ground that the Company  is  a  limited
\nconcern and carries on different kinds of business.  But  as
\nin law under the Companies Act, the Company being a  limited
\nconcern\t is one legal entity, the Common features  on  which
\nthe   respondents   rely  follow  from\t that\tone   single
\ncircumstance, namely, that the Company is a limited  concern
\ngoverned  by  the Company Law.\tIt would  therefore  in\t our
\nopinion\t be not right to emphasis these common features\t and
\nto  hold  on their basis only that  the\t various  businesses
\ncarried\t on  by\t the  Company have  to\tbe  treated  as\t one
\nintegrated  whole for the purposes of  wage-structure  etc.’
\nThe  outstanding fact in the present case is that  though  a
\nlarge  number  of  businesses is being\tcarried\t on  by\t the
\nCompany their nature in many cases is utterly different\t and
\none  has  generally speaking nothing to do with\t the  other.
\nThe  three  main  lines of business  which  the\t Company  is
\ncarrying  on  are  sugar, textiles and\tchemicals.   It\t .is
\nobvious\t that  there is nothing common between\tthese  three
\ndifferent lines of business and there can be no question  of
\none depending upon the other and there cannot be  functional
\nintegrality generally speaking between these three lines  of
\nbusiness.   There might be some connection speaking  between
\nthe  chemical  works and the textile mills  of\tthe  Company
\ninasmuch  as  some  of the chemicals might be  used  in\t the
\ntextile\t mills;\t but the evidence shows that  a\t very  small
\nproportion  of the chemicals produced in the chemical  works
\nis used in the textile mills and that most of the production
\nis  sold in the open market.  It cannot’ therefore  be\tsaid
\nthat the chemical works as it now
\n 525<\/span>
\nexists is therefor the purposes of the textile mills and  is
\nthus integrated with the textile- mills.  Even in the matter
\nof  employment\tthe  evidence  is  that\t there\tis  separate
\nrecruitment of labour for the different units and each\tunit
\nhas  separate  muster rolls of employees and this  is  quite
\nnatural considering that different skill is required for the
\nthree  lines  of  business carried on by  the  Company.\t  It
\ncannot\talso be said that there is any essential  dependence
\nof  the\t chemical  works on the textile units  or  that\t one
\ncannot\tbe operated without the other.\tFurther the  way  in
\nwhich  the Company has been dealing with different units  in
\nthe  past  also\t shows\tthat  they  have  been\ttreated\t  as
\nindependent  units.  Each unit has its own  separate  labour
\nunion  and separate agreements are entered into between\t the
\nCompany\t and  its unions with respect to the  conditions  of
\nservice which are also different for different Units.\tEven
\nin  the\t matter of bonus there are differences\tbetween\t the
\ndifferent units and these differences sometimes arose out of
\ndifferent  agreements  between the various units  and  their
\nunions.\t It appears that even in the case of units  carrying
\non  the same business, as for example, textile, the  workmen
\nthemselves  contended  in an earlier adjudication  that\t the
\nDelhi  Cloth  Mills  and the Swats  Bharat  Mills  were\t two
\ndistinct  and  separate units of the Company.  In  any\tcase
\nwhatever  may  be said as to the units in the same  line  of
\nbusiness it is in our opinion perfectly clear that there  is
\nno nexus of integration between different lines of  business
\ncarried\t on  by\t the Company on the facts  which  have\tbeen
\nproved\tin this case.  We are of opinion therefore that\t the
\nratio  of  the decision in the Fine Knitting  Co.’s  case(5)
\napplies\t to the facts of this case and it must be held\tthat
\nthe  chemical works is an independent unit and therefore  in
\nfixing\tthe  wage  structure etc. we have  to  look  to\t the
\nposition of the chemical works only and cannot
\n(5)  C.A. 306 of 1961, decided on 15-2-1962.\n<\/p>\n
526<\/span><\/p>\n
integrate  it  with  other  units  and\tconsider  its\twage
\nstructure etc. on the basis of such integration.
\nIt  is in the background of the above finding, namely,\tthat
\nthe  chemical works is an independent unit that we now\tcome
\nto the specific points raised in the two appeals.  We  shall
\nfirst  take the appeal by the workmen.\tThe  following\tfour
\ncontentions only were pressed before us on their behalf :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)Even  considering the chemical works as  an
\n\t      independent  unit,  the tribunal\tshould\thave
\n\t      fixed  a wage structure including\t incremental
\n\t      scales ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)The  tribunal should have given  the\tsame
\n\t      minimum scales to the workmen employed in\t the
\n\t      canteen  as  are\tbeing  given  to  the  other
\n\t      workmen in this concern;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)The\ttribunal  should  have\tmade   those
\n\t      members  of the civil engineering\t ‘department
\n\t      who  had been working for more than  one\tyear
\n\t      permanent and should have given them the\tsame
\n\t      terms and conditions of service as are enjoyed
\n\t      by other workmen of the concern ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)The  tribunal should have awarded  further
\n\t      bonus to the workmen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Re. (i)
\nThe  contention on behalf of this respect is that there\t are
\nno  incremental\t scales in this concern\t and  the  tribunal,
\nshould\thave  at any rate made a beginning  by\tfixing\tsome
\nincremental  scales for the workmen.  The  tribunal  however
\nhas refused to fix incremental scales on the ground that the
\nconcern\t has  neither  financial ability  nor  stability  to
\njustify\t the  fixing of incremental scales  at\tthe  present
\ntime.  It is not in dispute that throughout
\n527<\/span>
\nthe  course  of its existence the chemical  works  has\tmade
\nprofits only in two years and that for the rest of the\ttime
\nit has been making losses which had to be met by the Company
\nout  of\t the  profits  of other\t units.\t  Reliance  in\tthis
\nconnection  has been placed on behalf of the respondents  on
\ncertain observations in the Tariff Commission Report and  on
\na book called “Fertilizers Statistics in India” to show that
\nthe chemical industry has a very prosperous future in  front
\nof  it.\t  Reliance has also been placed on  a  communication
\naddressed  by the appellant to the respondents in  which  it
\nhas  been said that judging from sound\tbusiness  principles
\nthe chemical works had not yet turned the corner of  losses,
\nbut  the position appeared brighter, and it was\t hoped\tthat
\nwith the co-operation of labour the chemical works would  be
\nan  asset  to the D. C. M. family.  Our attention  has\talso
\nbeen drawn to various annual reports in which an  optimistic
\npicture\t has been painted by the directors  for the  benefit
\nof  the\t shareholders.\tWe agree however with  the  tribunal
\nthat  in spite of the possibility that in time to  come\t the
\nchemical works might acquire stability and prove a source of
\nincreasing profit to the Company, the fact remains that upto
\nnow  the. chemical works has been running at a\tloss  except
\nfor  two years and one cannot be certain that it will  start
\nearning profits soon.  In these circumstances it seems to us
\nthat   the  tribunal  was  justified  in  not\tframing\t  an
\nincremental  scale of wages at the present juncture as\tthat
\nwould  put  a heavy strain on the finances on  the  chemical
\nworks  which has yet to attain financial stability.  At\t the
\npresent\t moment the losses incurred in this unit have to  be
\nmet  froth the profits earned in other units of the  Company
\nand in this situation we do not think that the tribunal\t was
\nwrong in refusing, to frame incremental scales.
\nIt is however urged on behalf of the respondents that if  in
\nthe course of the last twenty years the capital invested  in
\nthe chemical works has increased
\n528<\/span>
\ntremendously as compared to the modest amount with which  it
\nwas started in 1942 and if the Company can find capital\t for
\nthe  purpose  of  expansion,  it  should  be  able  to\t pay
\nincremental scales of wages by dipping into the same  source
\nfrom which it has been able to find capital.  In effect this
\nargument  means that even though the concern may  be  making
\nlosses\tyear after year it should find money for paying\t the
\nlabour force higher wages in spite of the circumstance\tthat
\nthat  may  lead\t it  into  incurring  further  losses.\t The
\nargument  seems to be that even though there may  be  losses
\nthe  concern  must pay higher wages to the  workmen  and  if
\nnecessary  pay them out of what may be called capital.\t Now
\nthis  argument would in our opinion be unanswerable  if\t the
\nclaim was for what is called minimum wage: (See Messrs Crown
\nAluminium Works v. Their Workmen<\/a> (1).  If the wages paid  by
\nthe  appellant\tin the present case were below\tthe  minimum
\nwage  that  the\t tribunal would certainly  be  justified  in
\nordering  it  to pay the minimum wage, for no  industry\t can
\nhave  a\t right to exist if it cannot pay wages at  the\tbare
\nsubsistence level.  Where it is a case of payment of minimum
\nwage,  the tribunal can insist on the same being  found,  if
\nnecessary,  even out of capital.  But this is not a case  of
\nbare  minimum  wage and we are dealing with a case  of\tfair
\nwage  which is above the bare minimum wage.  It is not\teven
\nthe  case of the respondents that they are not\tgetting\t the
\nbare minimum wage.  Their case is that they should be  given
\na  fair wage, and that the present wages, though  above\t the
\nbare  minimum wage, are still not fair enough and  therefore
\nshould\tbe  increased  and an incremental  scale  should  be
\nfixed.\t In  such  a situation we are of  opinion  that\t the
\npresent financial condition of the concern and its stability
\nare both necessary to be considered before an increased fair
\nwage can be given.  Both the present capacity of
\n(1)  [1958] S.C.R. 651.\n<\/p>\n
529<\/span><\/p>\n
of  the employer to pay the increased rates  of\t incremental
\nwages and its future capacity have to be taken into  account
\nin determining an increased level of fair wages based on  an
\nincremental  scale.  Thus both financial ability at  present
\nand financial stability in the near future must be there  to
\njustify fixation of an increased fair wage on an incremental
\nscale.\t We  do not think it will be right to insist  on  an
\nincreased fair wage on an incremental scale in a case  where
\nthe financial capacity and the financial stability as judged
\nby  business principles are both lacking.  Nor would  it  in
\nour  opinion  be right to compel the employer  to  bear\t the
\nburden of an increased fair wage on an incremental scale and
\ntell  him to find money from what may in effect be  capital,
\nfor such a ‘situation in ordinary cases can lead only to one
\nresult,\t namely, the closure of the business concern,  which
\nmay be more detrimental to the workmen.\t Therefore  carrying
\non with the present scale of fair wages and hoping that\t the
\nfinancial ability and stability of the concern will improve,
\nwith  the result that increased fair wage on an\t incremental
\nbasis  may  be fixed in future is the  only  alternative  at
\npresent\t even  in the interest of the  workmen\temployed  in
\nthis’ concern.\tWe therefore agree with the tribunal that in
\nthe  circum,stances  no\t case has been made  for  fixing  an
\nincremental  scale  of wages at the present  juncture.\t The
\ncontention this head must therefore be rejected. Re. (ii).
\nAs  to the canteen workmen, it appears that the\t canteen  is
\nrun  by the appellant departmentally on a  no-profit-no-loss
\nbasis.\tThe workmen employed in the canteen are the  workmen
\nof  the appellant and their number is sixteen or  seventeen.
\nThe minimum basic wage for unskilled workmen in this concern
\nat  the relevant time was Rs. 38 plus Rs. 55 i. e. Rs. 93  ;
\nbut  the workmen in the canteen get consolidated  wages\t and
\nall of them (except one) get
\n530<\/span>
\nmuch less than the minimum, the figures varying from Rs.  50
\nto  Rs. 78.  The tribunal has held that there is  no  reason
\nwhy the conditions of service of the workmen in the  canteen
\nshould\tnot  be\t brought on a par  with\t the  conditions  of
\nservice\t of the rest of the workmen.  It  therefore  ordered
\nthat  the  workmen in the canteen would be entitled  to\t the
\nsame  facilities relating to leave, provident  fund,  bonus,
\nand  gratuity etc. as are available to the other workmen  in
\nthe  chemical  works  ; but so far  as\twages  and  dearness
\nallowance  are\tconcerned, it has not given  them  even\t the
\nminimum\t as indicated above.  The case of the the  appellant
\nwas that even if’ the minimum was paid to the workmen in the
\ncanteen the price of the various food-stuffs supplied by the
\ncanteen to the workmen would go up substantially and it\t was
\non  that ground that the appellant resisted the increase  in
\nthe  wages of those workmen in the canteen who\tare  getting
\nless than the minimum of Rs. 93.  The tribunal has  held-and
\nwe  think  rightly-that the fact that the bettering  of\t the
\nconditions of service of the workmen in the canteen may lead
\nto  a rise in the price of things sold’ there is  no  reason
\nfor  refusing  the demand of the workmen ; but\tit  has\t not
\ncarried\t  into\teffect\tfully  the  implications   of\tthis
\nobservation.   It  has ordered that same  conditions  as  to
\nleave  facilities  etc. should be extended  to\tthe  canteen
\nworkmen but has stopped short of giving them the same  wages
\nand dearness allowance.\t The reason why the tribunal did not
\ngive  the workmen the same wages and dearness  allowance  is
\nthat there was no satisfactory material before it to  permit
\nit  to fix wages and dearness allowance for the\t workmen  in
\nthe canteen.  We are of opinion that there is no reason\t why
\nthe  tribunal should not have at least granted\tthe  minimum
\nwhich  is paid to the other workmen in the concern to  those
\nworkmen\t in  the  canteen  who are  getting  less  than\t the
\nminimum.  We can see no reason for not giving them also the
\n531<\/span>
\nminimum\t wages\tas  indicated above.   This  will  certainly
\nresult\tin  bringing  the fifteen workmen  who\tare  getting
\nbetween Its. 50 and Rs. 78 per mensem as consolidated  wages
\ninto an equal position, for each will then get the  minimum,
\nnamely,.   Rs.\t38 plus Rs. 55 and may remove  part  of\t the
\ndiscontent.   In the circumstances that is all that  can  be
\ndone  in the absence of the material to which  the  tribunal
\nhas referred.  Therefore the wages of those fifteen  workmen
\nwho  are getting less than the minimum should be brought  to
\nthe same level.\t There is no reason why they should not\t get
\nsuch  benefits as may be due to them, by their\twages  being
\nbrought\t to  the  same minimum as the  wages  of  the  other
\nworkmen\t in  the concern.  We therefore\t disagree  with\t the
\ntribunal with respect to the workmen employed in the canteen
\nand  order that the wages of those workmen who\tare  getting
\nless  than  the\t minimum paid to the other  workmen  in\t the
\nconcern\t should be brought to the same minimum\tlevel.\t The
\nrest  of  the award on this head will  stand.\tThe  minimum
\nwages  as above will be paid from the date the tribunal\t has
\nordered its award to come into force.\n<\/p>\n
Be,. (iii)
\nThe  claim of the workmen in this connection was that  there
\nwere   300  workmen  employed  in  the\t civil\t engineering
\ndepartment  and\t that they should be made  permanent.\tThe’
\ntribunal  however rejected this contention and\tpointed\t out
\nthat  most of the workmen were temporarily engaged to  carry
\non  construction  work which was of a temporary\t nature\t and
\ntherefore.  they could not be made permanent simply  because
\nthe construction had lasted for more than a year.  This view
\nof  the\t tribunal is in our view correct in so\tfar  as\t the
\nclaim  put  forward with respect to all\t the  three  hundred
\nworkmen was concerned.\tIt appears however that at the\ttime
\nwhen the tribunal recorded
\n532<\/span>
\nevidence  the large majority of these 300 workmen  had\tbeen
\ndischarged  because  they were no longer required  and\tonly
\nabout 65 remained in service.  It appears from the  evidence
\n‘of  the  Joint Works Manager that a skeleton staff  on\t the
\ncivil engineering side is kept for maintenance of  buildings
\nand  this  skeleton  staff is of a more\t or  less  permanent
\nnature.\t  The  argument therefore before us is that  at\t any
\nrate  this skeleton staff should be made permanent.  It\t was
\nhowever\t urged on behalf of the appellant that this was\t not
\nthe  way  in which the matter was put before  the  tribunal.
\nThe  position now is however clear that a skeleton staff  is
\nkept  on  a  permanent\tbasis  for  the\t civil\t engineering
\ndepartment and it seems to us fair that the appellant should
\nbe  directed to make this skeleton staff permanent and\tgive
\nthem the same facilities and wages etc., as are given to the
\nother workmen.\tWe therefore direct that the appellant shall
\nmake  such of the skeleton staff as is maintained for  civil
\nengineering  purpose  permanent\t and  give  them  the\tsame
\nconditions of service including the same minimum wages\tetc.
\nas  to the rest of the workmen.\t It is however left  to\t the
\ndiscretion of the appellant to determine what should be\t the
\nstrength of this staff and which persons should be  retained
\nas permanent employees.\t We say this because the matter\t was
\nnot  gone into from this point of view before  the  tribunal
\nand we have no material on which we ourselves can  determine
\nthe  strength  of  the skeleton staff and  the\tpersons\t who
\nshould’\t be made permanent on that account.   The  direction
\nwill  be  given\t effect\t to  within  three  months  of\tthis
\njudgement.\n<\/p>\n
Re. (iv).\n<\/p>\n
The  workmen  have been given 2 1\/2 months  basic  wages  as
\nbonus for the years in dispute, namely, 1953-54 and 1954-55.
\nThey have claimed additional bonus.  It is however  conceded
\nfairly
\n533<\/span>
\non  behalf of the respondent that if the chemical  works  is
\ntreated\t as  an independent unit their case  for  additional
\nbonus on the basis of the Full-Bench formula cannot succeed.
\nThe demand for additional bonus was rightly rejected by\t the
\ntribunal,  considering the chemical works as an\t independent
\nunit.  We may add that this case is distinguishable from the
\ncase   of   Hony.   Secretary,\t South\t India\t Mill-owners
\nAssociation,  (1)  for here the two lines  of  business\t are
\ndistinct and have nothing to do with each other.
\nThis brings us to the appeal by the appellant.\tFive  points
\nhave  been urged on behalf of the appellant.  They are:\t (i)
\ndearness  allowance;  (ii)  uniforms,  (iii)  acid  and\t gas
\nallowance.  (iv)  leave facilities, and\t (v)  gratuity.\t  We
\nshall deal with them one by one.\n<\/p>\n
Re. (i).\n<\/p>\n
So fag as dearness allowance is concerned, the tribunal\t has
\nordered\t that the dearness allowance in the  chemical  works
\nshall be fixed at the same rate as it is in the power  house
\nwhich is a part of the chemical works.\tIt may be  mentioned
\nthat dearness allowance at the relevant time in the chemical
\nworks was Rs. 55 per mensem while in the power house it\t was
\nRs.  66\t per  mensem.\tThe  contention\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  in this connection is that the reason  why  there
\nwas  this difference ‘between the dearness allowance in\t the
\npower  house  and  in  the rest of  the\t chemical  works  is
\nhistorical.   It  is  further pointed out  that\t though\t the
\ndifference  in\tthe two dearness allowances is\tRs.  11\t the
\nactual\tdifference in the total wage packet was only  Rs.  3
\ninasmuch  as the minimum basic wage in the power  house\t was
\nRs.  30\t while in the chemical works it was Rs.\t 38  at\t the
\nrelevant  time.\t  Thus\tthe minimum  that  an  employee\t was
\ngetting in the power house was Rs. 96 while the minimum\t for
\nthe rest of the workmen was Rs. 93, and it is
\n(1)  C.A. 419 of 1960. decided on 1-2-1962.\n<\/p>\n
534<\/span><\/p>\n
urged  that the difference is not serious.  The reason\tthat
\nthe tribunal gave for increasing the dearness allowance\t for
\nthe  other  workmen  in the concern was that  there  was  no
\nground\tfor discriminating between the workmen in the  power
\nhouse  and  the\t rest of the  workmen.\t In  increasing\t the
\ndearness allowance on this sole ground the tribunal  ignored
\nfirstly the historical reason why there was this  difference
\nbetween the dearness allowance for the power house staff and
\nfor the rest of the workmen and also ignored the  difference
\nin  the basic minimum wages in the power house and  for\t the
\nrest  of the workmen.  It further seems to have ignored\t its
\nown earlier finding that the chemical works was running at a
\nloss and did not have the financial capacity to bear further
\nburden.\t  As a matter of fact it appears that but  for\tthis
\ndiscrimination which the tribunal found between the rate  of
\ndearness  allowance  for the power house employees  and\t the
\nrest  of the workmen it may not have made any change in\t the
\ndearness  allowance payable to the rest of the workmen.\t  It
\nmay  be mentioned that the system of dearness  allowance  in
\nthe concern is to allow neutralization at the rate of  2-1\/2
\nannas  (now  17 nP.) for each point rise  over\tthe  working
\nclass cost of living index treating the base as 100 for\t the
\nyear  1939.   It  may  also  be\t mentioned  that  since\t the
\nreference  was made there has been a voluntary\tincrease  in
\nthe  dearness allowance for the rest of the workmen  at\t the
\nrate of Rs. 6 per mensem.\n<\/p>\n
The reason why this difference is existing between the\trate
\nof dearness allowance for the power house employees and rest
\nof  the\t workmen is that for sometime the  power  house\t was
\nintegrated with the Swatantra Bharat Mills.  Therefore as an
\nintegral  part of the cotton textile industry the  rates  of
\nbasic wages and dearness allowance
\n535<\/span>
\nin  the power house were the same as in the  cotton  textile
\nbusiness  of  the  company.  Thus the  rates  there  at\t the
\nrelevant  time were, as we have already said, Rs.  30  basic
\nwage  and  Rs.\t66 dearness allowance.\t At  that  time\t the
\nminimum\t wage  in the chemical works was Rs. 38\t basic\tplus
\nIts.  55 dearness allowance i.e. Rs. 93 in all.\t It  appears
\nhowever\t that  there  was  some\t objection  by\tthe   Excise
\nDepartment of the Government as there was a gate between the
\nSwatantra   Mills  and\tthe  chemical  works.\tThe   Excise
\nDepartment  wanted this gate to be blocked in order to\thave
\nbetter\tcontrol over the excisable articles produced in\t the
\nchemical  works.   The appellant therefore had to  block  up
\nthis  gate  in\t1950 and therefore  the\t power\thouse  which
\nexisted\t on  the  chemical  works  side\t of  this  gate\t was
\ntransferred  from the Swatantra This to the chemical  works.
\nHowever as the power house workmen were getting the  textile
\nrates,\tthe  Company  assured them that\t trough\t they  would
\nthereafter  be under the control of the chemical works\tthey
\nwill be governed for the purposes of pay scales and dearness
\nallowance of I c. by the rule of the Swatantra Mills.  It is
\nthis circumstance which has resulted in different scales for
\nthe  power  house staff and the rest of the workmen  of\t the
\nchemical  works.   It further appears that  there  was\tsome
\nretrenchment in the power in 1957 and the retrenched workmen
\nwere  absorbed as far as possible in others units.  At\tthat
\ntime  there  was an agreement between the  Company  and\t the
\npower  house  workmen and it was agreed that  these  workmen
\nwould  be absorbed in other units but they would accept\t the
\nconditions  of service etc. of those units where  they\twere
\nabsorbed,  with the result that only those who are  left  in
\nthe  power  house  continue on the  textile  scales  of\t the
\nSwatantra  Bharat Mills.  These circumstances  however\twere
\nnot  taken  into  account by the tribunal  at  all  when  it
\nordered that the power house scale of
\n536<\/span>
\ndearness allowance should be introduced for the rest of\t the
\nworkmen\t also.\tThe power house scale is really the  textile
\nscale  and the appellant contended that it would lead  to  a
\ngood  deal of complication if the textile scale of  dearness
\nallowance  is  ordered\tto be introduced  for  the  chemical
\nworks.\t We  are  of opinion that there\t is  force  in\tthis
\ncontention  raised  on\tbehalf\tof  the\t appellant  and\t the
\ntribunal  was  not  justified  in  increasing  the  dearness
\nallowance  for\tthe chemical works merely  because  of\tthis
\nfortuitous  circumstance arising out of historical  reasons.
\nIn  any case the number of the power house workmen  is\tvery
\nsmall, say about 30140, who who are getting a different rate
\nof dearness allowance: Further it appears that there was not
\nmuch difference between the total wage packet for the  power
\nhouse  workmen and for the rest and that was another  reason
\nwhy the tribunal should not have introduced the power  house
\nscale  for  the rest of the workmen.  It  has  however\tbeen
\nurged  on behalf of the respondents that the  difference  in
\nthe basic minimum wages between the power house workmen\t and
\nthe   rest  of\tthe  workmen  in  the  chemical\t works\t has
\ndisappeared  after the recommendations of the  Textile\tWage
\nBoard  by which the minimum basic wage for  textile  workers
\nhas  been  increased  by Rs. 8 and it  became  Rs.  38\tfrom
\nJanuary\t 1, 1960.  Therefore, it is urged that there .is  no
\nreason\twhy the tribunal’s award with respect to making\t the
\ndearness  allowance for the rest of the workmen the same  as
\nthe  workmen  of the power .house should not be\t allowed  to
\nstand.\tSuperficially, this argument looks attractive ;\t but
\nif one examines it in the light of the Textile Wage  Board’s
\nrecommendations\t it  will be found that the linking  of\t the
\ndearness allowance. for the chemical work’s workmen with the
\npower house workmen would lead to endless complications, for
\nthe  power  house  workmen would be  entitled  to  the\tsame
\ndearness allowance etc, as would govern the textile  workmen
\nin the
\n537<\/span>
\nSwatantra Bharat Mills.\t The Textile Wage Board report shows
\nthat  it recommended not only that the basic wage should  be
\nincreased  but\talso  that  a large  part  of  the  dearness
\nallowance  should be merged with basic wage,  the  remainder
\nalone  remaining as dearness allowance.\t It is submitted  on
\nbehalf\tof  the\t appellant  that  it  has  carried  out\t the
\nrecommendations of the Textile Wage Board and the result  of
\nthe  same  has\tbeen that the basic  wages  of\tthe  textile
\nworkmen\t which would apply to the power house workmen  would
\nbe  fixed  at  about  Rs. 88 or\t Rs.  89  and  the  dearness
\nallowance  would  be reduced to about Rs. 15.  It  is  urged
\nthat the practical linking of the dearness allowance for the
\nrest of the workmen with the dearness allowance in the power
\nhouse  which has been ordered by the tribunal on the  ground
\nthat  there  should be no discrimination., would  result  in
\nendless trouble, apart from the question whether in view  of
\nthe  earlier  finding of the tribunal as to  the  financial.
\ncapacity  of  the  appellant it would be  possible  for\t the
\nappellant to bear the extra burden of the increased dearness
\nallowance.  The operative order of the tribunal is that\t the
\nworkmen of the chemical works, excluding the workmen who are
\ngoverned  by Ex.  W\/2, should be paid dearness allowance  at
\nthe  rate at which it is being given to the workmen  of\t the
\npower house, and this undoubtedly in our opinion would\tlead
\nto  endless  trouble  now that the  recommendations  of\t the
\nTextile Wage Board will for historical reasons apply to\t the
\nworkmen in the power house.\n<\/p>\n
Which are therefore of opinion that the ground on which\t the
\ntribunal  ordered  the rate of dearness\t allowance  for\t the
\nother workmen of the chemical works to be paid on a par with
\nthe  rate  for the power house is not  sustainable  and\t the
\ntribunal went wrong in not giving due weight to the histori-
\ncal  reasons  for the rates prevailing in the  power  house.
\nFurther\t we  are  of  opinion  that  the  increase  is\t not
\nsustainable on its own merits on the ground
\n538<\/span>
\nof the financial capacity of the concern, which the tribunal
\nitself found was not sound, as the concern bad been  running
\nat loss practically since it came into existence except\t for
\ntwo  years.   The  contention therefore\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant on this head must be accepted and the order of the
\ntribunal increasing the dearness allowance set aside.
\nRe. (ii).\n<\/p>\n
As  to\tuniforms, we see Do reason to differ from  the\tview
\ntaken  by the tribunal.\t The reasons given by  the  tribunal
\nfor  ordering  that  uniforms should  be  given\t to  certain
\ncategory  of  workmen  Are in our opinion  sound.   But\t the
\ntribunal bat; trade a mistake when it went on to order\tthat
\nprotective  equipment  should also be given in\taddition  to
\nuniforms,   to\tthe  persons  found  entitled  to   uniforms
\naccording  to the directions of the tribunal.  The  tribunal
\nseems to have overlooked the difference between uniforms and
\nprotective equipment; which is provided in the Delhi Factory
\nRules.\t So far as protective equipment is concerned, it  is
\ngiven for certain specific purposes to be found in the Rules
\nand  has  no connection with uniforms  which  employers\t are
\nordered\t to  supply to their workmen, for  reasons  entirely
\ndifferent.   We are therefore of opinion that the  direction
\nof  the\t tribunal that protective equipment should  also  be
\nsupplied  to  persons found entitled to uniforms  under\t its
\norder,\tis not correct and should be set aside.\t So  far  as
\nprotective equipment is concerned, it will only be  supplied
\nto  those  who are entitled to it under\t the  Delhi  Factory
\nRules  and not necessarily to all to whom uniforms may\thave
\nto  resupplied under the orders of the tribunal.   We  order
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Re. (iii).\n<\/p>\n
At; to acid and gas allowance, the tribunal has ordered\t the
\npayment of Rs. 3 per month to certain categories of workmen.
\nIt appears that originally
\n539<\/span>
\nthe appellant used to pay Rs. 5 as acid and gas allowance in
\nthe  Nitric acid gas plant and Rs. 3 in the  contact  plant.
\nLater,\thowever, this gas allowance was merged in pay.\t But
\nit  appears that gas allowance, is still being paid  to\t the
\nworkmen in the pity trie acid gas plant.  It’is contended on
\nbehalf of the appellant that this was because the gas allow-
\nance  in  the case of these workman was not merged  in\tpay.
\nThere is, however, nothing on the record to prove this.\t  As
\nthe  record’stands  we have no reason to hold that  the\t gas
\nallowance  which was originally paid to the workmen  of\t the
\nnitric acid gas plant was riot merged in their pay.  On\t the
\nwhole therefore the reasons given by the tribunal for making
\nthe allowance (1) Rs. 3 to those workmen who are engaged  in
\nthe  manufacture of chlorine, sulphuric acid,  caustic\tsoda
\nand hydrochloric acid Appear to us to be sound and we see no
\nreason to interfere with that part of the award.
\nRe. (iv).\n<\/p>\n
So  far as leave facilities are concerned, the tribunal\t has
\nawarded\t that privilege should be granted as provided  under
\nthe Factories Act.  It has further provided that casual-cum-
\nsick  leave should be granted,for twelve days in  the  year.
\nWe do not think that this award is in any way, unreasonable.
\nThe”tribunal  has  however  gone on to\tdeal  with  festival
\nholidays,  and\tthat  in our opinion  the  tribunal  had  no
\njurisdiction  to  do.  The reference was in  these  terms  :
\n“Whether leave facilities should be increased  and if so, to
\nwhat  extent”.There  was no with respect, to  holidays.\t The
\ntribunal  has  however\ttaken the  view\t that  holidays\t are
\ncovered\t within\t the words “leave facilities”  used  in\t the
\norder  of  reference.  We are of opinion that this  view  is
\nincorrect.   Holidays  are  entirely   different  in   leave
\nfacilities.  On a,
\n540<\/span>
\nholiday the entire business is closed and no one works while
\nleave  facilities  deal with leave  for\t individual  workers
\nwhile  the business as a whole is running.  We may  in\tthis
\nconnection  refer  to item 4 of the Third  Schedule  to\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act (No. 14 of 1947), which is in  these
\nterms  : “”Leave with wages and holidays”.  This shows\tthat
\nholidays stand on a different footing altogether from  leave
\nwith wages and a reference with respect to leave  facilities
\ncannot include a consideration of holidays.  The  tribunal’s
\norder with respect to holidays is set aside.
\nRe. (v).\n<\/p>\n
Lastly\twe  come to the gratuity scheme\t sanctioned  by\t the
\ntribunal.  It is true that in this concern there is  already
\na  provident  fund  scheme in force.  But  it  is  now\twell
\nsettled that both gratuity as well as provident fund schemes
\ncan be framed in the same concern if its financial  position
\nallows\tit.  It is true that the financial position  of\t the
\nchemical  works\t has not been found to be  good\t and  stable
\nenough\tto  warrant  an\t incremental  wage-structure  ;\t but
\ngratuity is a long term provision and there is no reason  to
\nsuppose that in the long, run the appellant will not be in a
\nflourishing  condition.\t As to the burden of the scheme,  we
\ndo  not think that, looking at it from a practical point  of
\nview  and taking into account the fact that there are  about
\n800  work-men  in all in the concern, the  burden  per\tyear
\nwould\tbe  very  high,\t considering  that  the\t number\t  of
\nretirements is between three to four per centum of the total
\nstrength.   Further we find that in this very concern  there
\nis  a gratuity scheme for clerks who number between 100\t and
\n200 and are part of the labour force.  We can see under\t the
\ncircumstances no reason why a similar gratuity scheme should
\nnot be framed for the rest of the
\n541<\/span>
\nworkmen.   We therefore see no reason to interfere with\t the
\norder of the tribunal in this respect.\n<\/p>\n
We  therefore allow the appeals in part and dismiss them  in
\npart in the manner indicated in the course of this judgment.
\nIn  the circumstances parties will bear their own  costs  in
\nboth the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed in part.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical … vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962 PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF THE D.C.M. CHEMICAL WORKS Vs. RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/03\/1962 BENCH: ACT: Industrial Dispute–Company undertaking several concerns If–independent units–Wage structure–Incremental scales– Minimum wage and fair wage, distinction–Gratuity in addition to Provident Fund–Scheme for–If […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManagement Of The D.C.M. Chemical ... vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical ... vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-10T01:11:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical … vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-10T01:11:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962\"},\"wordCount\":7721,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962\",\"name\":\"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical ... vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-10T01:11:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical … vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical ... vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical ... vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-10T01:11:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical … vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962","datePublished":"1962-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-10T01:11:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962"},"wordCount":7721,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962","name":"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical ... vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-10T01:11:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-the-d-c-m-chemical-vs-their-workmen-on-1-march-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical … vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=104362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104362\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}