BIJAY COTTON MILLS LIMITED Vs. ITS WORKMEN
LAWS(SC)-1960-2-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 12,1960

BIJAY COTTON MILLS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
ITS WORKMEN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

K V R SHETTY VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT HOME DEPT KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1979-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIDHI ANANTHARAMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAI COTTON MILLS VS. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1964-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA SETHIA VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(RAJ)-1973-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
Workman of Indian Oil Corporation LTD VS. Union of India [LAWS(PAT)-1978-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF VISHNU SUGAR MILLS LIMITED HARKHUA VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1960-3-17] [RELIED ON]
HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD VS. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR K RETIRED INDUSTRIAL [LAWS(KER)-1966-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL ARID ZONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE VS. ARID ZONE EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TENGAPANI TEA ESTATE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2017-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-101] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)The industrial dispute between the Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the appellant) and their workmen (hereinafter called the respondents) which has given rise to this appeal by special leave has gone through a protracted and tortuous course. The respondents claimed that the scale of minimum wages and rates for contract works should be fixed for them because it was alleged that the payments made by the appellant were below the level of the bare subsistence wage. The appellant did not accede to the demand thus made by the respondents, and so on December 1, 1950, the present dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. D. N. Roy, under S. 10 (1) read with S. 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). Amongst the items thus referred for adjudication, the first two were (1) that the mill employees be paid minimum wages and rates for contract works as shown in the two statements enclosed, and (2) that dearness allowance be paid to all workers at the rate of Rs. 35 per mensem each and it may be increased or decreased according to rise or fall in prices. In the present appeal we are concerned with the minimum wages.
(2.)It appears that Mr. Roy found himself unable to fix any basic minimum wage, and to support his view, that it would be inexpedient to fix any minimum basic wage in the proceedings pending before him, he referred to the fact that the question of fixation of the basic wage had been rendered enormously difficult by the state of industrial development in the Stage of Ajmer and by the unsteady and frequent fluctuations in prices. Even so he considered several items of dispute referred to him and announced his award on October 5, 1951.
(3.)This award was challenged by the respondents before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appellate tribunal thereupon remanded the matter to Mr. Roy with a direction that the issues as to the basic wage and as to dearness allowance should be specifically determined and appropriate directions issued on those two items. This remand order was passed on October 20, 1952.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.