{"id":16098,"date":"1962-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962"},"modified":"2017-10-30T20:20:45","modified_gmt":"2017-10-30T14:50:45","slug":"the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962","title":{"rendered":"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New … vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New … vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1332, \t\t 1964 SCR (1) 234<\/div>\n
Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD.,NEW DELHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHEIR WORKMENVICE VERSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/12\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1332\t\t  1964 SCR  (1) 234\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1966 SC 305\t (47)\n RF\t    1967 SC 948\t (9)\n RF\t    1967 SC1175\t (15)\n R\t    1967 SC1286\t (8)\n RF\t    1969 SC 182\t (10)\n E\t    1969 SC 360\t (11,15,19,28,32,35)\n R\t    1970 SC  87\t (4)\n D\t    1970 SC 245\t (9)\n R\t    1972 SC 343\t (13,14)\n R\t    1976 SC2091\t (7)\n R\t    1978 SC1113\t (26)\n R\t    1979 SC1211\t (8)\n R\t    1980 SC  31\t (8)\n RF\t    1981 SC 599\t (16)\n RF\t    1981 SC1088\t (16)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial Dispute-Fixation of wage structure-Factors to  be\nconsidered-Fair\t  Wage-Living\tWage-Extent  of\t  power\t  to\ninterfere under Art. 136 with wage scale fixed by  Tribunal-\nDearness  allowance  on\t basis\tof  sliding   scales-Interim\nagreement  regarding interim relief not to be  ignored-Leave\nrules-Gratuity-Retirement  age-Retrospective  operation\t  of\naward-Delhi  Shops  & Establishment Act, 1954  (Delhi  7  of\n1954)-Employees'  State\t Insurance Act, 1948  (34  of  1948)\n---Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Chief  Commissioner,  Delhi,  referred  an\t  industrial\ndispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,  Delhi,\nwhich gave its award on March 16, 1959.\t Both the  appellant\nand  the  respondents were dissatisfied with the  award\t and\nthey  came  to this Court by special leave.  The  award\t was\nchallenged  by the appellant with regard to scales  of\tpay,\ndearness  allowance, adjustments, leave rules, gratuity\t and\nretrospective effect of the award.  The respondents attacked\nthe  award  as regards the working hours,  leave  rules\t and\nretirement age.\nHeld, that while social justice demands that workmen  should\nget  a fair share of the national income which they help  to\nproduce, it has also to be seen that that does not result in\nthe  drying  up\t of the source of  national  income  itself.\nInroads\n 235\non the profits of the capitalists should not be such as have\na  tendency to drive capital away from\tfruitful  employment\nand  thereby affect prejudicially capital  formation  itself\nThe  Tribunal  had applied the correct\tprinciples  and\t the\naward should not be disturbed,\nHeld, also, that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a  fixed\ndearness  allowance  of Rs. 25 \/-.  The object\tof  dearness\nallowance  being to neutralise part of the rise or  fall  in\nthe  cost  of living, it should ordinarily be on  a  sliding\nscale.\nHeld,  that the contention of the appellant that in view  of\nthe provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act,  1948,\nno  provision need be made about sickness leave at all,\t was\nrejected.   It\twas  pointed  out  that\t in  providing\t for\nperiodical payments to an insured worker in case of sickness\nor for medical treatment or attendance to him or the members\nof his family under the Act of 1948, the Legislature did not\nintend to substitute any of these benefits for the workmen's\nright to get leave on full 'Pay on the ground of sickness.\nHeld, that as regards those workmen to whom the Delhi  Shops\nand  Establishments  Act, 1954, applied,. the  Tribunal\t had\nacted  illegally  in fixing the period of sick leave  at  15\ndays and permitting accumulation.  The appellant shall allow\nto  the workmen to whom the Delhi Shops\t and  Establishments\nAct applied, sickness or casual leave for a total period  of\n12  days with full pay and allowances, and such leave  shall\nnot  accumulate.   As  it  was not  desirable  to  have\t two\nseparate leave rules for two classes of workmen, one to whom\nthe  Act of 1954 applied and tile other to whom the Act\t did\nnot  apply, it was held that the same rule should  apply  to\nother workers also.\nHeld,  also, that tile scheme of gratuity as framed  by\t the\ntribunal  was not unduly favourable to workmen and  it\talso\ndid not place any undue strain on the financial resources of\ntile  Company.\t As regards the provision  in  the  gratuity\nscheme\tthat  an employee who is  dismissed  for  misconduct\nshall not be entitled to any gratuity; it was held that\t the\nproper\tprovision  should  be  that  where  an\temployee  is\ndismissed  for\tmisconduct which has resulted  in  financial\nloss to the employer, the amount of loss should be  deducted\nfrom the amount of gratuity due.\nThe award of the Tribunal on tile question of retirement age\nwas  set  aside\t and the retirement age\t was  fixed  at\t 58,\nsubject to the proviso that it would be open to the  company\nto continue in its employment a workmen who had passed\tthat\nage,  The  rule was to apply to all tile  employees  of\t the\nCompany.\n236\nNo  general formula could be laid down as to the  date\tfrom\nwhich  a  Tribunal should make its  award  effective.\tThat\nquestion has to be decided by the Tribunal on  consideration\nof   the   circumstances  of  each  case.   There   was\t  no\njustification  for  interfering with the  direction  of\t the\nTribunal  that in this case the reliefs given by  it  should\nbecome effective from the date of the reference.\nStandard  Vacuum  Refining  Co., of India  v.  Its  workmen,\n[1961]\tS.  C. R. 536, M\/s.  Crown Aluminium  Works  v.\t Its\nworkmen,  [1958]  S. C. R. 651, Express Newspapers  Ltd.  v.\nUnion  of  India,<\/a> [1959] S. C. R. 12, M\/S.  Lipton  Ltd.  v.\nTheir Workmen [1959] Supp. 2 S. C. R. 150, Workmen Hindustan\nMotors\tv. Hidustan Motors,<\/a> (1962) 2 L. L. J. 3\t 52,  French\nMotor  Car Co. v. Their Workmen,<\/a> (1962)\t 2 L. L. J. 744\t and\nGuest Keen, Williams (P) Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling<\/a> [1961] 1  S.\nC. R. 348, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 489 &\t 490
\nof 1961.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by  special leave from the award  dated  March\t 16,
\n1959, of the Second Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in  Reference
\nI. D. No. 20 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
G.S. Pathak, S. T. Desai, M. L. Sethi, B. Dutta and Anand
\nPrakash,  for  the appellant (in C. A. No. 489\/61)  and\t the
\nrespondent (in C. A. No. 490\/61).\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t  Setalvad,   Attorney-General\t for   India\tM.K.
\nRamamurthi,  D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg and S.C.  Agarwal,\t for
\nthe respondents (in C.A. No. 489\/61) and the appellants\t (in
\nC. A. No. 490\/61).\n<\/p>\n
1962.  December 14.  The judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nDAs  GUPTA,.’ J.-These two appeals by special leave, one  by
\nthe  employer and the other by the workmen, arise out of  an
\nindustrial dispute that was referred for adjudication to the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal Delhi, by an order made on January\t 23,
\n1958  by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi.\t The  Tribunal\tmade
\nits award on March 16, 1959.  Out of the numerous
\n 237<\/span>
\nmatters that were included in the terms of reference, we are
\nconcerned  in these appeals only with a few.   The  employer
\nchallenges  the\t award as regards : (1) Scales of  pay,\t (2)
\nDearness  allowance, (3) Adjustments, (4) Leave\t Rules,\t (5)
\nGratuity  and  (6) Retrospective effect of the\taward.\t The
\nworkmen also attacked the award as regards the scales of pay
\nand dearness allowance.\t In addition, they have attacked the
\naward as regards the working hours, leave rules, night shift
\nallowance,   retirement\t  age  and  procedure\tfor   taking
\ndisciplinary  action.  At the time of the hearing before  us
\nhowever\t the  learned Attorney General,\t appearing  for\t the
\nworkmen,  did not press their claim for modification of\t the
\naward  as  regards, night shift allowance, leave  rules\t and
\nprocedure for taking disciplinary action and working hours.
\nIt appears that when the dispute was before the Conciliation
\nOfficer,  Delhi,  for settlement an  interim  agreement\t was
\narrived at between the parties on December 20, 1957 by which
\nthe  management\t agreed\t to give  certain  interim  reliefs,
\nranging between Rs. 6\/- to Rs. 10\/- per month from the month
\nof  November  1957.  One of the terms of the  agreement\t was
\nthat  this  payment  “will be  adjusted\t against  the  final
\noutcome\t of  the  demands  by  constitutional  means”.\t The
\nTribunal  has  in  its award given  a  direction  that\tthis
\ninterim relief shall remain unaffected.\t Taking this to be a
\ndirection  that\t the adjustment as agreed upon\tof  payments
\nunder  the  interim  arrangement  shall\t not  be  made,\t the
\nemployer  has  in its appeal challenged the  correctness  of
\nthis direction also.\n<\/p>\n
The  most  important  of  the matters  in  dispute  are\t the
\nquestions of the wage scale, the dearness allowance and\t the
\nadjustment  of existing employees into the new\tscales.\t  It
\nappears\t that from 1946 onwards the Company’s  workmen\thave
\nhad  a\tconsolidated wage scale, no distinction\t being\tmade
\nbetween
\n238<\/span>
\nthe basic wage and the dearness allowance.  This wage  scale
\nhas  remained practically unaltered except for some  special
\nincrements  given  in  the  year 1948.\t By  the  award\t the
\nTribunal has introduced new wage scale for certain  existing
\ncategories  of workmen and in some cases has introduced\t new
\nscales,\t after\tamalgamating more than one  category.\tThus
\ncertain\t railway despatchers, advertisers, Box No.  sorters,
\nfiling clerks and bank clerks who were formerly in the scale
\nof  Rs. 50-4-90-EB-4-115 and Junior Clerks etc., who  had  a
\nscale of Rs. 60-100EB-4-115 have all been put on a new scale
\nof   Rs.  70-5-100-EB-5-150.   There  has  been\t a   similar
\namalgamation or clerks, assistants, cashiers, record keepers
\nand  others some of whom were on Rs. 80-175 and some on\t Rs.
\n80-203\tscale, all of them being now put on a new  scale  of
\nRs.  90-200.   In both cases the starting  salary  has\tbeen
\nraised; the maximum has been raised for the first  category.
\nSupervisors and others who were formerly on three  different
\nscales,\t some on Rs. 125-350, some on Rs. 125-300, and\tsome
\non Rs. 100-250, have all been amalgamated and have been\t put
\non a new scale of Rs. 100-350. Obviously, this would mean  a
\nlower  starting salary for some and maximum for\t some.\t,job
\nI)Daftries some of whom were on Rs. 70-115 scale and  others
\non Rs. 100-155 have all been put on a new scale of Rs. 80 to
\nRs.  11,15, resulting thus in a lowering of starting  salary
\nfor some and a rise of a higher maximum for all.  A  similar
\nlowering  in the starting salary has also occurred in  cases
\nof  some  of the jobmachinemen.\t They were formerly  on\t two
\nscales, one of Rs.125-175 and the other of Rs. 75-175.\t The
\nAssistant Foremen in the job Department formerly on Rs. 125-
\n175 are put on a scale of Rs. 125-202.\tWhere there has been
\nno  amalgamation  the  new scale has resulted  in  a  slight
\nincrease  in some cases both in the starting salary and\t the
\nmaximum.   In  some catagories, no change has been  made  at
\nall,
\n 239<\/span>
\nIt  is\tunnecessary to give more details of  the  difference
\nbetween\t the  old scale and the new scale as what  has\tbeen
\nmentioned  above  is sufficient to indicate that  there\t has
\nbeen  some  change  in favour of the  workmen,\tthough\tthis
\nchange is not much.  The employer’s contention before us  is
\nthat  there was no case for any revision whatsoever and\t the
\nTribunal acted wrongly in making any change in the old\twage
\nscale.\tThe workmen’s contention on the contrary is that the
\nchanges do not go far enough.\n<\/p>\n
The  fixation of wage structure is among the most  difficult
\ntasks  that industrial adjudication has to tackle.   On\t the
\none hand not only the demands of social justice but also the
\nclaims\tof national economy require that attempts should  be
\nmade  to  secure  to workmen a fair share  of  the  national
\nincome\twhich they help to produce, on the other hand,\tcare
\nhas to be taken that the attempt at a fair distribution does
\nnot tend to dry up the source of the national income  itself
\nOn  the one hand, better living conditions for workmen\tthat
\ncan  only  be possible by giving them a “living\t wage”\twill
\ntend to increase the nation’s wealth and income on the other
\nhand, unreasonable inroads on the profits of the capitalists
\nmight  have a tendency to drive capital away  from  fruitful
\nemployment   and  even\tto  affect   prejudicially   capital
\nformation  itself.   The rise in prices that  often  results
\nfrom the rise of the workmen’s wages may in its turn  affect
\nother\tmembers\t of  the  community  and  may  even   affect
\nprejudicially\tthe   living  conditions  of   the   workmen
\nthemselves.   The  effect  of such a rise in  price  on\t the
\nCountry’s international trade cannot also be always ignored.
\nThus  numerous complex factors, some of which  are  economic
\nand  some  spring  from\t social\t philosophy  give  rise\t  to
\nconflicting  considerations that have to be borne  in  mind.
\nNor  does the process of valuation of the  numorous  factors
\nremain\tstatic.\t While international movements in the  cause
\nof labour have for many years influenced thinking-and
\n240<\/span>
\nsome-times even judicial thinking–in such matters, in\tthis
\ncountry,  the emergence of an independent demo cratic  India
\nhas   influenced   the\t matter\t  even\t more\t profoundly.
\nGajendragadkar, J. speaking for the Court in Standard vacuum
\nRefining Co., of India v. Its Workmen<\/a> (1), has observed :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  constructing a wage structure in a  given
\n\t      case  industrial adjudication does  take\tinto
\n\t      account to some extent considerations of right
\n\t      and wrong, propriety and impropriety, fairness
\n\t      and  unfairness.\tAs the social conscience  of
\n\t      the  general community becomes more alive\t and
\n\t      active,  as  the welfare policy of  the  State
\n\t      takes  a\tmore dynamic form, as  the  national
\n\t      economy progresses from stage to stage, and as
\n\t      under the growing strength of the trade  union
\n\t      movement,\t collective  bargaining\t enters\t the
\n\t      field,  wage structure ceases to be  a  purely
\n\t      arithmetical  problem.  Considerations of\t the
\n\t      financial\t position  of the employer  and\t the
\n\t      state of national economy have their say,\t and
\n\t      the  requirements\t of a workman  living  in  a
\n\t      civilised and progressive society also come to
\n\t      be recognised.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  trying  to\tkeep  true  to\tthe  two  points  of  social
\nphilosophy   and   economic  necessities   which   vie\t for
\nconsideration,\tindustrial adjudication has set\t for  itself
\ncertain\t standards in the matter of wage fixation.   At\t the
\nbottom of the ladder, there is the minimum basic wage  which
\nthe  employer of any industrial labour must pay in order  to
\nbe allowed to continue an industry.  Above this is the\tfair
\nwage,  which may roughly be said to approximate to the\tneed
\nbased minimum, in the sense of a wage which is “adequate  to
\ncover the normal needs of the average employee regarded as a
\nhuman being in a civilised society.” Above the fair wage  is
\nthe “living wage” a wage “which will maintain the workman in
\nthe  highest  state  of industrial  efficiency,\t which\twill
\nenable him to
\n(1)  [1961] S.C.R. 536, 543.\n<\/p>\n
 241<\/span><\/p>\n
provide\t his family with all the material things  which\t are
\nneeded\tfor their health and physical well-being, enough  to
\nenable him to qualify to discharge his duties as a citizen.”
\n(Cited\twith  approval\tby  Mr.\t justice  Gajendragadkar  in
\nStandard Vacuum Company’s Case (1) from “The living Wage” by
\nPhilip Snowden).\n<\/p>\n
While  industrial adjudication will be happy to fix  a\twage
\nstructure  which would give the workmen generally  a  living
\nwage economic considerations make that only a dream for\t the
\nfuture.\t  That\tis  why the  industrial\t tribunals  in\tthis
\ncountry\t generally  confine their horizon to the  target  of
\nfixing\ta fair wage.  But there again, the economic  factors
\nhave  to be carefully considered.  For these  reasons,\tthis
\ncourt has repeatedly emphasised the need of considering\t the
\nproblem\t on  an\t industry-cum-region basis,  and  of  giving
\ncareful consideration to the ability of the industry to pay.
\n(Vide  Crown  Aluminium’s Case (2); the\t Express  Newspapers
\nLtd., Case (8) and the Lipton’s Case (4).\n<\/p>\n
On  an\texamination of the Tribunal’s award as\tregards\t the
\nwage  scale,  we are satisfied that all\t the  considerations
\nmentioned above were present in the mind of the\t adjudicator
\nand  we\t are  of opinion that there is\tnothing\t that  would
\njustify\t us in modifying the award either in favour  of\t the
\nemployer  or in favour of the workmen.\tIt is stated in\t the
\naward that before the Tribunal the Company’s  representative
\ndesired\t that a fair wage level within its  paying  capacity
\nshould be evolved though at the time he argued that existing
\nwage  structure\t is quite fair “”looking  to  the  Company’s
\nfinancial   position  as  well\tas  the\t comparative   rates
\nprevailing  in\tthe  other concern.” The  Tribunal  has\t not
\naccepted  the  Company’s contention that the  existing\twage
\nstructure is fair, though at the same time it has held\tthat
\nthe  wage system needs no such radical change as alleged  by
\nthe Union.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1961] S.C.R. 536, 543.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1939] S.C.R. 12.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1958] S.C.R. 651.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 150.\n<\/p>\n
242<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr. Pathak, who appeared before us for the Company, did\t not
\nseriously suggest that the present wage structure gives\t the
\nemployees  “a fair wage.” He argued generally that  no\tcase
\nwas  made out for any revision of the wage structure.\tSuch
\nan  extreme proposition has only to be mentioned to  deserve
\nrejection.   At the time the Tribunal was dealing with\tthis
\nquestion  the wage scale of the workmen in this concern\t had
\nremained practically unaltered for almost 12 years-12  years
\nof  momentous change through which social ideas\t have  moved
\nforward\t in favour of workmen getting a better share of\t the
\nnational  income;  12 years during which the new  India\t was
\nborn  and a Constitution was framed for this  new  democracy
\n“to secure to all its citizens, justice, social and economic
\nand  political”\t and  enshrining in  its  43rd\tArticle\t the
\nprinciple  that\t ,the  State shall endeavour  to  secure  by
\nsuitable  legislation  or economic Organisation\t or  in\t any
\nother  way  to\tall  workers  agricultural,  industrial\t  or
\notherwise” among other things tea living wage and conditions
\nof  work  ensuring  a  decent  standard\t of  life  and\tfull
\nenjoyment    of\t   leisure   and   social    and    cultural
\nopportunities………………. “. The mere passage of time
\nand  these  revolutionary  changes would  be  sufficient  to
\nconvince any right thinking man of the need for revision  of
\nwage  scales  which, on the face of it, were far  below\t the
\n“living\t wage”\tand  mostly also  below\t the  “‘fair  wage”,
\nprovided the industry could bear the additional burden.\t The
\ncase  for revision becomes irresistible when one takes\tinto
\nconsideration the further fact that the cost of living\trose
\nsteeply\t during this period.  On the basis of 1939  cost  as
\n100,  the index for 1946 was 282.  By 1958 it had  risen  to\n<\/p>\n
389.   It may be mentioned that since then there has been  a
\nfurther\t rise.\tNor can it be seriously suggested that\tthis
\nconcern\t cannot bear the burden of an increased wage  scale.
\nThe  Tribunal was, in our opinion, right in  its  conclusion
\nthat the material on record shows that the Company has\tbeen
\nprospering and has financial
\n 243<\/span>
\nstability.   We\t have for ourselves  examined  the  balance-
\nsheets\tand  the other materials on the record and  have  no
\nhesitation  in agreeing with that conclusion.  Mr.  Pathak’s
\nuphill\ttask in the face of these balance-sheets already  on
\nthe  record  to show that the Company would not be  able  to
\nbear  the  burden of an increased wage scale has  been\tmade
\nmore  difficult by the discovery that even after the  imple-
\nmentation  of the award the Company has made  large  profits
\nduring the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62.
\nIt appears that when the Company was given special leave  to
\nappeal\tto this Court the operation of the Tribunal’s  award
\nwas  stayed only in so far as it directed the management  to
\npay  arrears  of  the  wages  determined  thereby  but\t the
\noperation  of  the  award in so far as\tit  related  to\t the
\npayment of wages from the date of the award was not  stayed;
\nand  the management was directed to pay to the workmen\tfrom
\nthat  date wages in accordance with the wage scale fixed  by
\nthe Tribunal by its award under appeal.\t The result of\tthis
\nhas  been  that\t the Tribunal’s award as  regards  the\twage
\nscales has been implemented with effect from the date of the
\naward  and  it is possible for this Court to know  how\tsuch
\nadditional  payment has affected the financial\tposition  of
\nthe  Company.  It appears that after meeting the  additional
\ncharges and also after payment of bonus and appropriation to
\nreserves  the net profits for the year 1959-60 rose  to\t Rs.
\n8,04,508\/-.   For  the year 1960-61 these profits  were\t Rs.
\n8,44,627\/-.   For the year 1961-62 the profits are shown  in
\nthe  balance-sheet  as Rs. 59,955\/-.  That the\tCompany\t has
\nbeen  prospering  is clear.  It has its own  aeroplanes\t and
\npossesses  immovable properties of considerable\t value.\t  It
\nhas  built up good reserves and inspite of that it has\tbeen
\nmaking\tgood profits.  It is reasonable to think  that\twith
\nthe progress of education in the country and the  increasing
\nnews  mindedness of the people the future prospects  of\t the
\nCompany are no less bright.  On a consideration
\n244<\/span>
\nof  all this,, we are clearly of opinion that  Mr.  Pathak’s
\ncontention that the wage scale fixed by the Tribunal is\t too
\nheavy for the Company to bear, must be rejected.
\nEqually\t unacceptable is Mr. Pathak’s next  contention\tthat
\nthe  wage scale fixed by the Tribunal operates\tunfavourably
\non  this  Company  vis-a-vis two  other\t concerns  in  Delhi
\nregion,\t viz., the Times of India, Delhi and the  Statesman,
\nDelhi.\t We  have  compared the wage  scales  in  these\t two
\nconcerns viz., the Times of India, Delhi and the  Statesman,
\nDelhi, with the wage scale under the award and have for\t the
\npurpose of comparison taken into consideration the  dearness
\nallowance  as fixed by the Tribunal.  The  comparison  shows
\nthat  while in some cases the Company (the Hindustan  Times)
\nwill have to pay more to its workmen than what is being paid
\nto workmen of the same category by the Times of India, Delhi
\nand the Statesman, Delhi, in several cases it will be  less.
\nIt  has\t also to be borne in mind that the Times  of  India,
\nDelhi  and the Statesman, Delhi, are much smaller  units  of
\nthe  newspaper\tindustry than the  Hindustan  Times.   These
\nCompanies  are mere adjuncts to the Times of  India,  Bombay
\nand the Statesman, Calcutta, respectively.  Therefore,\teven
\nif  for\t some categories the wage scale under the  award  is
\nhigher\tthan  that  in the Times of  India,  Delhi  and\t the
\nStatesman, Delhi, that would be no ground for modifying\t the
\naward  in favour of the Company.  We have therefore come  to
\nthe  conclusion\t that  there is\t no  ground  whatsoever\t for
\nmodifying the wage scale fixed by the award in favour of the
\nCompany.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf of the workmen it was strenuously contended\tthat
\nthe increase given by the award over the previous wage scale
\nfalls far short of justice.  It is pointed out that even the
\nTimes  of India, Delhi and the Statesman, Delhi,  which\t are
\nmuch smaller
\n 245<\/span>
\nconcerns and of lesser financial stability and strength, pay
\nto some categories of its workmen higher wages than what has
\nbeen fixed by the award.  Thus our attention has been  drawn
\nto the fact that for Assistants, the Times of India,  Delhi,
\nrate is Rs. 241-402, and in the Statesman, Delhi, it is\t Rs.
\n190-297 for some and Rs. 264-463 for others while under\t the
\naward  the  scale is Rs. 125-375.  There are  several  other
\ncases  also where the wage scale under the award appears  to
\nbe  lower  than what is being paid by the  Times  of  India,
\nDelhi and the Statesman, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
It  has been urged by the learned Attorney-General  that  in
\nview  of  the fact that the wage scale of  the\tCompany\t has
\nremained  practically stationary for the last 12  years\t and
\nthat  it  is indisputably well below the fair wage  and\t the
\nfurther fact that even smaller concerns in this region, like
\nthe  Times  of India, Delhi and the Statesman,\tDelhi,\thave
\nbeen paying more to some categories of its workmen, the wage
\nscale as fixed by the Tribunal should be raised at least for
\nsome  of the categories. There is undoubtedly some force  in
\nthe contention and it maybe said that the Tribunal has\tbeen
\nrather\tcautious in the matter of revision of  wage  scales.
\nEven  so,  it  has to be remembered that where,\t as  in\t the
\npresent case, the proper principles have been applied by the
\nTribunal, it is not the practice of this Court to interfere,
\nordinarily, with details of this nature when exercising\t its
\nspecial jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution.  It
\nalso appears to us that the very fact that the Tribunal\t has
\nbeen  cautious in the matter of raising the wage scales\t has
\ninfluenced it in the directions it has given on the question
\nof adjustment of the present employees into the wage  scale.
\nIn  this  way  some relief has been  given  to\tthe  present
\nemployees  which might otherwise have been given by  raising
\nthe  wage scale.  On a consideration of all these  facts  we
\nhave reached the conclusion that it will not be
\n246<\/span>
\nproper\tfor  us\t to  modify the wage  scales  fixed  by\t the
\nTribunal in favour of the workmen also.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t question of dearness allowance it is  not  disputed
\nbefore\tus that in the circumstances of the resent case\t the
\nTribunal  acted rightly in awarding dearness allowance at  a
\nflat  rate for all categories of workmen.  On behalf of\t the
\nCompany\t it was however urged that the Tribunal has made  an
\nobvious\t mistake in fixing the amount of dearness  allowance
\nat  Rs. 25\/-.  For fixing the rate at Rs. 25\/- the  Tribunal
\nhas said :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  view\t of the revised scales as  now\tlaid
\n\t      down,  I\tthink  the same\t should\t further  be
\n\t      supplemented in the circumstances stated above
\n\t      by  a flat rate of dearness allowance  in\t all
\n\t      cases,  viz.,  Rs.  25\/-\twith   retrospective
\n\t      effect from the date of reference so that\t the
\n\t      lowest  paid worker will start not  less\tthan
\n\t      Rs. 75\/-. 1 direct accordingly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr.  Pathak points out that the lowest paid worker for\twhom
\nwage scales have been fixed will be getting under the  award
\na  minimum of Rs. 6l0\/- so that with the dearness  allowance
\nof Rs. 25\/- “the lowest paid worker” will start at Rs.\t85\/-
\nand not Rs. 75\/-.  Mr. Pathak suggests that the Tribunal has
\nmade  a mistake in its calculations and that having  decided
\nthat the lowest paid worker will start at not less than\t Rs.
\n75\/-,  it should have fixed Rs. 15\/- and not Rs.  25\/as\t the
\ndearness  allowance.   This argument however  overlooks\t the
\nfact  that the reference as regards the\t dearness  allowance
\nwas  in\t respect of all categories of  workmen,\t though\t the
\nreference  as  regards\tscales of pay  did  not\t cover\tsome
\ncategories, viz., mazdoors and canteen boys.  They therefore
\ncontinue to remain on their old scale of Rs. 50-3-85.\tWhen
\nthe  Tribunal  in  considering\tthe  question  of   dearness
\nallowance  was\tthinking of the starting pay of\t the  lowest
\npaid worker
\n 247<\/span>
\nit had obviously these categories in mind.  Having concluded
\nthat the lowest paid worker should start at Rs. 75\/- as\t the
\ntotal  amount  of  basic  pay  and  dearness  allowance\t the
\nnecessary  conclusion reached by the Tribunal was  that\t Rs.
\n25\/-  should be fixed as the dearness allowance.  It is,  in
\nour   opinion,\tproper\tand  desirable\tthat  the   dearness
\nallowance should not remain fixed at this figure but  should
\nbe  on\ta sliding scale.  As was pointed out in\t Workmen  of
\nHindusthan  Motors  v.\tHindusthan  Motors<\/a>  (1),  the  whole
\npurpose of dearness allowance being to neutralise a  portion
\nof the increase in the cost of living, it should  ordinarily
\nbe on a sliding scale and provide for an increase on rise in
\nthe  cost of living and a decrease on a fall in the cost  of
\nliving.\t On a consideration of all the circumstances of this
\ncase,  we  direct that a sliding scale be  attached  to\t the
\ndearness  allowance of Rs. 25\/- per month as awarded by\t the
\nTribunal on the lines that it will be liable to be increased
\nor decreased on the basis of Re. 1\/- for every ten points in
\ncase of rise and fall in the cost of living from the base of
\n400, the 1939 index being taken to be 100 the sliding  scale
\nto take effect from April 1, 1959.\n<\/p>\n
This brings us to the question of adjustment of the existing
\nemployees  into the new scale.\tThe Tribunal has dealt\twith
\nthis matter thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “‘……the adjustment in the new scales shall
\n\t      be  made\twith retrospective effect  from\t the
\n\t      date  of\tthe reference, viz.,  23rd  January,
\n\t      1958.  In making adjustment in the new  scales
\n\t      no  one  shall be adversely  affected  and  it
\n\t      shall  be\t on  the  line\tlaid  down  by\t the
\n\t      Industrial  Tribunal  in the  case  of  Caltex
\n\t      India Ltd., 1951 LLJ. 654 at p. 659 read\twith
\n\t      para.  23\t of  the  decision  of\tthe   Labour
\n\t      Appellate Tribunal, reported in 1952 LLJ.\t 183
\n\t      at page 188.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It appears that in the case of Caltex India Ltd.,(Supra) the
\nIndustrial Tribunal, West Bengal, gave
\n(1)  (1962) 2 L.L.J. 352.\n<\/p>\n
248<\/span><\/p>\n
the  following directions for adjustment of  employees\tinto
\nthe wage scale fixed by it.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1. All employees for whom the scale has\tbeen
\n\t      stated above should be stepped up in the stage
\n\t      next above which the present pay is drawn.   A
\n\t      special increment at the rate of one increment
\n\t      in  the  new scale for every  three  completed
\n\t      years of service should be given.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    The\t employees whose salaries  are\tless
\n\t      than the minimum prescribed will be pulled  up
\n\t      to the minimum of the prescribed scale.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    If the existing salary of an employee is
\n\t      higher than the salary he will be entitled  to
\n\t      under  the prescribed scale, there will be  no
\n\t      cut  and he will be stepped up to the  nearest
\n\t      increase with the increments given above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    After  the\tsalaries  are  adjusted,  no
\n\t      employee\tshould\tbe  staggered  and  he\twill
\n\t      continue to get future increments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    If\tan  employee be\t already  drawing  a
\n\t      salary  which  is\t higher\t than  the   maximum
\n\t      prescribed by the award, he will be  subjected
\n\t      to no cut in his salary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  was  followed by a direction as regards  the  date  by
\nwhich  the adjustment was to be made.  The Labour  Appellate
\nTribunal  modified  these  directions  by  introducing\t two
\nprovisions : (1) that the maximum of the grade should not be
\nexceeded and (2) that the basic wage that was being paid  to
\nan employee at the date of the award of the Tribunal is\t not
\nto  be affected to the employees’prejudice.  The  employer’s
\nobjection  is to the provision that a special  increment  at
\nthe rate of one increment in the new scale for every
\n 249<\/span>
\nthree  completed  years of service should be given.   It  is
\nargued\tthat such a provision may well be appropriate  in  a
\ncase  where wage scale is being fixed for the first time  or
\nwhere  even if there was already a wage scale in  force\t the
\nrate of increment in the new scale is much higher than\tthat
\nin  the\t old wage scale, but not where, as  in\tthe  present
\ncase,  the increments under the new scale and the old  scale
\nare  practically  the same.  We are not\t impressed  by\tthis
\nargument.\n<\/p>\n
As  was\t pointed out by this Court in a recent\tjudgment  in
\nFrench\tMotor  Car  Co.,  Ltd.\tv.  Its\t Workmen<\/a>  (1),\twhat
\nadjustment should be given is to be decided when fixing wage
\nscales\twhether\t for the first time or in place\t of  an\t old
\nexisting scale has to be decided by industrial\tadjudication
\nafter  consideration of all the circumstances of  the  case.
\nIt  may\t well  be true that in the absence  of\tany  special
\ncircumstances  and  adjustment of the nature as\t allowed  in
\nthis case by allowing special increment in the new scale  on
\nthe   basis   of  service  already  rendered  may   not\t  be
\nappropriate.   Clearly,\t however, in the  present  case\t the
\nTribunal  took into consideration in deciding this  question
\nof  adjustment the fact that it had been extremely  cautious
\nas  regards increasing the old wage scales.  Apparently,  it
\nthought\t that  it would be fair to give some relief  to\t the
\nexisting  employees  by\t means of such increase\t by  way  of
\nadjustment while at the same time not burdening the employer
\nwith  higher  rates of wages for new incumbents.   In  these
\ncircumstances,\t we  do\t not  see  ally\t Justification\t for
\ninterfering with the directions given by the Tribunal in the
\nmatter of adjustment.\n<\/p>\n
It  will  be  convenient  to  consider\tat  this  stage\t the
\nobjection  raised in the Company’s appeal to the  Tribunal’s
\ndirection in connection with the interim agreement.  As\t has
\nbeen  stated earlier, this agreement was arrived at  between
\nthe  parties  when the dispute was before  the\tConciliation
\nOfficer.  The
\n(1)(1962) 2 L.L.J. 744.\n<\/p>\n
250<\/span><\/p>\n
relevant portion of the agreement is in these words :-
\n   “It is hereby agreed between the parties that:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    The\t Management agrees to  make  interim
\n\t      relief   on  the\tfollowing  terms  to   every
\n\t      employee,\t  excluding   working\tjournalists,
\n\t      drawing salary up to Rs. 400 p.m.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)Advance payment ranging between Rs. 6\/-  to
\n\t      Rs. 10\/- per month beginning from the month of
\n\t      November, 1957 in the following manner :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   Those with annual increment of Rs.\t3\/-,
\n\t      Rs. 4\/-, and Rs. 5\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t Rs. 6\/-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Those with annual increment
\n      of Rs. 6\/-Rs. 7\/-\n<\/p>\n
 (c)  Thosewith annual increment
\n      of Rs. 7\/-Rs. 8\/-<\/p>\n
 (d)  Thosewith annual increment
\n\t      of Rs. 10\/-\t\t  Rs. 10\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t      Note.\t (i)   In  case\t any  employee\t has
\n\t      already reached the ceiling of his grade, even
\n\t      then  he\twould  he  entitled  for  the  above
\n\t      benefit.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  This  payment will be  adjusted  against
\n\t      the  final out-come of the present demands  by
\n\t      constitutional means.”\n<\/p>\n
“The final out-come of the present demands by constitutional
\nmeans’s\t is  the  Tribunal’s  award.   Under  the  agreement
\ntherefore what has been received by
\n 251<\/span>
\nthe  workmen as advance payment at Rs. 6\/- or Rs.  71or\t Rs.
\n8\/-  or\t Rs.  10\/- per month as interim\t relief\t has  to  be
\nadjusted  against what is due to be paid to them  under\t the
\naward.\t In other words, the Company is entitled  under\t the
\nagreement to deduct the payments made as interim relief from
\nwhat  is  payable to these very employees under\t the  award.
\nThe  Tribunal’s\t direction  that the  interim  relief  shall
\nremain\tunaffected is in effect an order that term  (ii)  of
\nthe  agreement\tneed not be complied with.  We can  find  no
\njustification  for  such an order.  While it  is  true\tthat
\nindustrial  adjudication  can  and  often  has\tto   modifiy
\nexisting  contracts  between an employer  and  its  workmen,
\nthere  can  be\tno  justification  for\tmodification  of  an
\nagreement  of  this  nature pending final  settlement  of  a
\ndispute.   Such\t a direction that the solemn  words  of\t the
\nworkmen’s  representatives that interim relief which may  be
\ngiven will be adjusted against the relief finally given need
\nnot be complied with, is not only unfair to the employer but
\nis  also not calculated to serve the best interests  of\t the
\nworkmen themselves.  For one thing, an order of this  nature
\nin one case by a Tribunal that such an undertaking need\t not
\nbe  carried  out  is likely to\thamper\tinterim\t settlements
\ngenerally;  it is also not desirable that workmen should  be
\nencouraged  to\ttreat  their undertakings as  of  no  value.
\nIndustrial adjudication must be careful not to encourage bad
\nfaith  on  the\tpart  of the workmen  or  the  employer.   A
\ndirection  as  given by the Tribunal in this case  that\t the
\nterm  in the agreement that payments made will\tbe  adjusted
\nagainst\t the  final outcome need not be\t complied  with,  is
\nunfortunately to have such effect on workmen.  We  therefore
\nset aside the Tribunal’s direction that interim relief\twill
\nremain unaffected and direct that adjustments should be made
\nin terms of the said interim arrangement.\n<\/p>\n
This brings us to the question of Leave Rules.\tThe  Company
\nobjects to the award as regards this matter in so far as  it
\ndirects the Company to allow 15
\n252<\/span>
\nday’s\tsick  leave  with  full\t pay  and  allowances\twith
\naccumulation  up  to  six months on  production\t of  medical
\ncertificate given by a registered medical practitioner.\t  It
\nalso  objects to the direction that the present practice  as
\nto  insistence\ton previous application for the\t purpose  of
\ncasual leave should not be relaxed in cases where it  cannot
\npossibly be so done in emergent and unforeseen circumstances
\nand  the direction that up to 3 days no medical\t certificate
\nshould\tbe  asked  for.\t  It appears  that  at\tpresent\t the
\nManagement  grants  10 days’ casual leave  to  the  business
\nstaff  and 7 days’ casual leave to all the other  categories
\nand there is no sick leave facility available.
\nMr.  Pathak  has tried to convince us that in  view  of\t the
\nprovisions  of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948,  no
\nprovision  need be made about sickness leave at\t all.,\tThat
\nthis  Act  has\tbeen applied to the  Company  and  that\t the
\nworkmen\t of the Company get the benefit of this Act  is\t not
\ndisputed.   It is difficult to see however how\tthe  benefit
\nthat  the  workmen will get under this Act  can\t affect\t the
\nquestion  of sickness leave being provided for the  workmen.
\nThis Act it has to be noticed does not provide for any leave
\nto the workmen on the ground of sickness.  It provides in s.
\n46 (1) (a) for periodical treatment of any insured person in
\ncase  of  his  sickness if certified  by  a  duly  appointed
\nmedical practitioner.  It is unnecessary to mention here the
\nseveral provisions in the Act; viz., Sections, 47, 48 and 49
\nwhich  deal  with the eligibility of  workmen  for  sickness
\nbenefit\t and the extent of the benefit that may be  granted.
\nSection\t 56 of the Act provides for medical benefits to\t the
\ninsured\t workman or in certain cases to the members  of\t his
\nfamily.\t  It appears to us clear however that  in  providing
\nfor  periodical\t payments to an insured worker\tin  case  of
\nsickness  (sickness  benefit) or for medical  treatment\t or,
\nattendance  to\thim  or\t the  members  of  his\tfamily,\t the
\nlegislature did not intend
\n 253<\/span>
\nto substitute any of these benefits for the workmen’s  right
\nto get leave on full pay on the ground of sickness.
\nIt  is\tnext  contended that  the  Tribunal’s  direction  as
\nregards sickness leave offend the provisions of Delhi  Shops
\nand Establishments Act, 1954.  Admittedly, a large number of
\nworkmen\t covered  by  the  reference  are  governed  by\t the
\nprovisions  as\tregards\t leave under  the  Delhi  Shops\t and
\nEstablishments Act, 1954.  Section 22 of that Act fixes\t the
\nmaximum for sickness or casual leave with wages to a  period
\nof  12 days and further provides that such leave shall\triot
\nbe  accumulated.   It is thus clear that  as  regards  those
\nworkmen to whom the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954
\napplies\t the  Tribunal\thas acted illegally  in\t fixing\t the
\nperiod of sick leave at 15 days and permitting accumulation.
\nWe  therefore  set  aside this direction in  the  award\t and
\ndirect\tinstead that the Company shall allow to the  workmen
\nto  whom  the  Delhi  Shops  and  Establishments  Act,\t1954
\napplies, sickness or casual leave of a total of 12 days with
\nfull  pay  and allowances and that such leave shall  not  be
\naccumulated.   We  are also of opinion that it will  not  be
\nright  to have two separate leave rules for the two  classes
\nof  workmen, one to whom the Delhi Shops and  Establishments
\nAct, 1954 applies and the other two whom it does not  apply.
\nFor  that  is  likely to be a source  of  much\tdiscord\t and
\nheartburning.\tTherefore, in respect also of those  workmen
\nto  whom the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act,  1954\tdoes
\nnot  apply,  we think that the same period of 12 days  in  a
\nyear  with  full  pay and allowances  should  be  fixed\t for
\nsickness   or\tcausal\tleave,\tand  there  should   be\t  no
\naccumultation of such leave; and we direct accordingly.
\nWe  cannot find any justification for the direction  of\t the
\nTribunal that the practice of insistence on
\n254<\/span>
\nprevious application for the purpose of casual leave  should
\nbe relaxed in cases where it cannot possibly be\t so done  in
\nemergent  and unforeseen circumstances and that upto 3\tdays
\nno medical certificate should be asked for.  The leave rules
\nof  the\t Company as they now stand provide  that  ordinarily
\nprevious  permission of the head of the department  and\t the
\nEstablishment Manager shall be obtained before casual  leave
\nis  taken but that when this is not possible due  to  sudden
\nillness,  the head of the Department or the Manager as\tsoon
\nas  may be practicable should be informed in writing of\t the
\nabsence\t from  work  and of the probable  duration  of\tsuch
\nabsence.   In our opinion, this provision is reasonable\t and
\nis calculated to meet the needs of workmen for taking  leave
\nwithout previous permission, in case of emergency.  In these
\ncircumstances,\tthe further directions as regards this\tthat
\nhave  been  given  by  the  Tribunal  appear  to  us  to  be
\nunnecessary and are hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t question of gratuity, the only\t argument  seriously
\npressed\t by Mr. Pathak was that the scheme as framed by\t the
\nTribunal  would put undue strain on the\t Company’s  sources.
\nWe have already expressed our agreement with the  Tribunal’s
\nconclusion that the Company’s financial resources are strong
\nand stable and that not only has the Company been prospering
\nin  recent  years  but that its future\tprospects  are\talso
\nbright.\t  Therefore,  we  do not think that  the  scheme  of
\ngratuity  as framed by the Tribunal is unduly favourable  to
\nthe  workmen  or  that it places any  undue  strain  on\t the
\nCompany’s financial resources.\n<\/p>\n
One  provision\tin  the gratuity scheme which  ought  to  be
\nmentioned is that under it an employee who is dismissed\t for
\nmisconduct  shall not be entitled to any gratuity.   It\t has
\nbeen  pointed out by this Court in more than one  case\tthat
\nhaving\tregard\tto  the nature of gratuity it  will  not  be
\nproper to deprive
\n 255<\/span>
\nan  employee  of the gratuity earned by him because  of\t his
\ndismissal for misconduct and the proper provision to make in
\nthis  connection is that where an employee is dismissed\t for
\nmisconduct  which  has\tresulted in financial  loss  to\t the
\nemployer the amount lost should be deducted from the  amount
\nof  gratuity  due.   As however in  the\t present  case,\t the
\nworkmen\t have not appealed against the award as regards\t the
\ngratuity  scheme  framed  by the Tribunal, it  will  not  be
\nproper for us to make the modification as indicated above.
\nComing\tnow to the question of retirement age on  which\t the
\nworkmen have appealed, we find there is some controversy  as
\nregards the existing position.\tThe workmen stated in  their
\nwritten\t statement  before the Tribunal\t that  “‘at  present
\nthere are no set rules in the Company in this matter.” Their
\nclaim was that the retirement age should be fixed at 60\t for
\nall  the  employees  of\t the  Company.\t According  to\t the
\nManagement’s written statement “the existing  superannuation
\nsystem\tis that the age of retirement is fixed at  55.”\t The
\nMagagement  further stated that the age of  retirement\t“‘as
\nfixed,\tthat is, 55 years” is appropriate and should not  be
\nraised.\t  In  respect  of this controversy  as\tregards\t the
\nexisting position there appears to be little material on the
\nrecord.\t  From\tthe  appointment  letters  of  some  of\t the
\nemployees  that\t we find on the record it appears  that\t for
\nsome  appointments  made in 1955 the age of  retirement\t was
\nmentioned  as  55.  In the several letters  of\tappointments
\nmade  prior  to\t that year no age  of  retirement  has\tbeen
\nmentioned.  It is not clear, therefore, how on the  question
\nof  retirement age the Tribunal proceeded on the basis\tthat
\nthe  “existing\tretirement” age is 55.\tProceeding  on\tthis
\nbasis  the Tribunal directed “that the\texisting  retirement
\nage  at\t 55  years should continue but the  workers  may  be
\nallowed\t to remain in employment and work up to 60 years  if
\nfound fit.  The question of the further extension
\n256<\/span>
\nshould\trest  with  the discretion of  the  Management.”  On
\nbehalf\tof  the\t workmen the  learned  Attorney-General\t has
\ncontended  that the assumption that the existing  retirement
\nage  is\t 55 is wrong in respect of most of the\tworkmen\t and
\nthat  except  for  a few persons  appointed  after  1955  no
\nretirement age is fixed either in the letters of appointment
\nor  in\tthe standing orders of the Company.  For  all  these
\nemployees for whom no retirement age has been fixed already,
\nthe  learned  Attorney-General argued on the  basis  of\t the
\ndecision of this Court in Guest Keen, Williams Private Ltd.,
\nv. P. J. Sterling.,<\/a> (1) that it would not be fair to fix any
\nage of superannuation.\tIt was held in that case that it was
\nunfair\tto  fix\t the  age  of  superannuation  of   previous
\nemployees  by  a  subsequent  standing\torder.\t The  Labour
\nAppellate  Tribunal had held that it would  be\tunreasonable
\nand unfair to introduce a condition of retirement at the age
\nof 55 in regard to the prior employees having regard to\t the
\nfact  that  when  they entered service\tthere  was  no\tsuch
\nlimitation.  This Court felt that it would not be  justified
\nin reversing this decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
\nDealing\t next  with the question whether  it  followed\tthat
\nthere should be no rule of superannuation in regard to these
\nprevious employees the Court said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In our opinion it is necessary to fix the age
\n\t      of  superannuation  even with  regard  to\t the
\n\t      prior employees, and we feel no difficulty  in
\n\t      holding  that  it\t would\tnot  be\t unfair\t  or
\n\t      unreasonable  to direct that  these  employees
\n\t      should retire on attaining the age of 60.\t  An
\n\t      option to continue in service even  thereafter
\n\t      which   the  respondent  claimed\t is   wholly
\n\t      unreasonable and is entirely inconsistent with
\n\t      the notion of fixing the age of superannuation
\n\t      itself.\tOnce  the age of  superannuation  is
\n\t      fixed  it\t may  be open to  the  employer\t for
\n\t      special reasons to continue in its  employment
\n\t      a workman who has passed that
\n\t      (1)   [1960] 1 S.C.R. 348.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       257<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      age  : but it is inconceivable that  when\t the
\n\t      age of superannuation is fixed it should be in
\n\t      the  option  of the employee  to\tcontinue  in
\n\t      service thereafter.  We would accordingly hold
\n\t      that  in\tthe circumstances of this  case\t the
\n\t      rule of retirement for the previous  employees
\n\t      in the concern should be 60 instead of 55\t and
\n\t      that  the\t rule  of 55  should  apply  to\t all
\n\t      employees\t  who  enter  the  service  of\t the
\n\t      appellant\t after the relevant standing  orders
\n\t      came into force.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Assuming  therefore that for the majority of  the  employees
\nthere  is  no  existing\t retirement  age  it  would  on\t the
\nauthority of the above case, be open to the Tribunal to\t fix
\nthe  age  of superannuation even with respect to  them.\t  As
\nhowever\t the Tribunal’s decision that this age should be  55
\nis  vitiated  by the incorrect assumption that there  is  an
\nexisting  retirement age of 55 it has been necessary for  us
\nto  consider  the question for ourselves.  It  appears\tthat
\nbefore\tthe  Tribunal  the  Union’s  representative  himself
\ndesired that the retirement age should be fixed at 58  years
\nwhich  may be extended up to 60 years in fit cases.   Before
\nus  the\t Counsel for the Company did not  seriously  contest
\nthat  in consideration of the present day  circumstances  in
\nthe  country it would be fair to fix the retirement  age  at\n<\/p>\n
58.   Accordingly, we set aside the Tribunals award on\tthis
\nquestion  of  retirement age and fix the age  at  58  years,
\nsubject\t to the proviso that it will be open to the  Company
\nto continue in its employment a workman who has passed\tthat
\nage.   This  rule should apply to all the employees  of\t the
\nCompany.\n<\/p>\n
There\tremains\t  for\tconsideration\tthe   question\t  of
\nretrospective  operation of the award.\tUnder s. 17A of\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act, 1947, an award  shall  come\tinto
\noperation  with\t effect from such date as may  be  specified
\ntherein but where no date is so specified it shall come into
\n258<\/span>
\noperation  on the date when the award  becomes\tenforceable.
\nEven  without  a  specific  reference  being  made  on\tthis
\nquestion it is open to an industrial tribunal to fix in\t its
\ndiscretion  a date from which it shall come into  operation.
\nThe reference, in the present case, included as a matter  in
\ndispute\t the  question\tof  retrospective  effect  in  these
\nwords :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether all the above demands should be\tmade
\n\t      applicable  retrospectively with\teffect\tfrom
\n\t      April   1,  1956\tand  what   directions\t are
\n\t      necessary in this respect ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Tribunal rejected the workmen’s claim for giving  effect
\nto its award from April 1956.  Wherever however the Tribunal
\nhas  given relief the Tribunal has directed that  the  award
\nshould\tcome into effect from the date of reference, i.\t e.,
\nJanuary\t 23,  1958.   On behalf of the\tCompany\t Mr.  Pathak
\ncontends  that\tthere is no reason why the award  should  be
\ngiven  effect  to  from any date prior to the  date  of\t its
\npronouncement.\t We are not impressed by this argument .  No
\ngeneral formula can be laid down as to the date from which a
\nTribunal should make its award effective.  That question has
\nto  be\tdecided\t by  the  Tribunal  on\ta  consideration  of
\ncircumstances  of  each case.  There have been\tcases  where
\nthis  Court has made an award effective from the  date\twhen
\nthe demand was first made.  There are other cases where\t the
\norders\tof  the\t Tribunal directing the\t award\tto  be\tmade
\neffective from the date of the award has not been interfered
\nwith.  It is true that in some cases this Court has modified
\nthe Tribunal’s award in such a case.  But it does not appear
\nhowever\t that  any general principles have been\t laid  down.
\nIndeed,\t it  is difficult and not even desirable  that\tthis
\nCourt  should  try to lay down general\tprinciples  on\tsuch
\nmatters that require careful consideration of the
\n 259<\/span>
\npeculiar  circumstances\t of each case for  the\texercise  of
\ndiscretion.    It  is  sufficient  to say that\twe  find  no
\nreason\tto interfere with the Tribunal’s direction  in\tthis
\ncase  that  the reliefs given by it would  become  effective
\nfrom the date of the reference.\n<\/p>\n
We therefore allow both the appeals in part by modifying the
\nTribunal’s award as regards dearness allowance, leave  rules
\nand retirement age and also as regards the adjustment of the
\ninterim relief as mentioned above.  In all other matters  in
\nappeal before us the award is confirmed.  The  modifications
\nmade as regards dearness allowance will, as already  stated,
\ntake  effect  from  April 1,  1959.   The  modifications  as
\nregards leave rules and as regards retirement age will\ttake
\neffect from this date.\tIn both the appeals the parties will
\nbear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed in part.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New … vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1332, 1964 SCR (1) 234 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD.,NEW DELHI Vs. RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMENVICE VERSA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/12\/1962 BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, […]<\/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-16098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Hindustan Times Ltd.,New ... vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 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\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New ... vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-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=\"1962-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-30T14:50:45+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=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New … vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T14:50:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962\"},\"wordCount\":7382,\"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\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962\",\"name\":\"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New ... vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T14:50:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New … vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New ... vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 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\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New ... vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-30T14:50:45+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":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New … vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962","datePublished":"1962-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T14:50:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962"},"wordCount":7382,"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\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962","name":"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New ... vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T14:50:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-hindustan-times-ltd-new-vs-their-workmenvice-versa-on-14-december-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Hindustan Times Ltd.,New … vs Their Workmenvice Versa on 14 December, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/16098","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=16098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16098\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}