GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) SEVENTEEN demands made by the respondents workmen against their employer, the appellant, the United Salt Works and Industries, Ltd., Kandla, were referred to the arbitration of Antony and Vaidya under S.10A of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947. On these demands parties led their evidence before the arbitrators and in the end the arbitrators made their award. Out of the demands awarded by the award, three demands from the subject-matter of the present appeal which has been filed by the appellant by special leave in this Court against the said award; they are housing, contract labour and minimum wages.
(2.) IN regard to housing, the respondents' demand was that each labour family shall have a good tenement to live in without rent, and all the worker shall have houses within three years. The arbitrators took the view that the problem of housing the respondents required immediate attention of the appellant. In cases like the present, observed the arbitrators, where workers are made to work miles away from human habitation, they must be provided with good housing accommodation. According to them, it is the duty of the employers to see that workers are suitably lodged in pucca, decent and sanitary and well-ventilated houses. Having made these observations in Para. 16 of the award, the arbitrator decided to give specific directions in Para. 17 in regard to the demand for housing. It is against these directions that a serious grievance has been made by Sri S. T. Desai on behalf of the appellant before us. The problem of housing and the employer's liability in that behalf have been considered by this Court in Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd. v. Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union [1959 - II L.L.J. 366]. In that case this Court has observed that it would not be expedient in the present financial condition of the industries in the country to impose additional costly burden of providing housing facilities, for, providing housing facilities should normally be the responsibility of the State. These observations, no doubt, are not intended to lay down an invariable or inflexible rule. Exceptions can and should be made where circumstances justify the departure from the said observations. In the present case the position has been simplified by reason of the fact that the appellant, while obtaining an interim stay from this Court, gave an undertaking in the following terms :"Subject to availability of materials - (1) we propose to construct within our area during the next two years one-hundred more quarters in brick-cum-galvanized iron sheets of the type now existing; (2) flooring of one hundred and seventy galvanized iron sheet hutments in concrete; and (3) country tiles will be placed on galvanized iron sheet roofs." We were told by Sri S. T. Desai that the appellant has carried out this undertaking and that the appellant was willing to undertake further to make reasonable provision for housing for all its permanent employees. This assurance, we think, would meet the ends of justice in the present case. Sri Barot for the respondents, did not dispute this position. We accordingly vary the directions given by the award in the light of the appellant's undertaking which we accept.
(3.) THE next contention is in regard to contract labour. The demand made by the respondents in this behalf was that the workers must be paid their wages directly by the management taking their signed receipts. It is advisable to discontinue the system of so-called contract labour; there should be no middle man; the contractors should be absorbed as mukaddams with increased wages. This demand was met by the appellant in this way. The only real contract work is the mud-work where this is essential. Mud-work provides alternate employment during commencement of seasonal repairs and during the season time when field-side activities happen to be slack; all other jobs of piece-work nature are entrusted to casual labour recruited, controlled and supervised by mukaddams. If any alteration is to be made, then mukaddams who act as retainers and are not workers, will not be required. On these contentions the award has directed that the present system of paying commission to contractors and mukaddams, after deducting it out of the wages due to labour, should be abolished. The workmen should be the direct employees under the company and each should be paid his due wages. The mukaddams should be taken over as semi-skilled workmen at Rs. 2-6-0 per day and supervision of jobs by groups of workmen should be entrusted to them. At the hearing of the appeal before us Sri Barot agreed that he would have no objection to contract labour in regard to mud-work. In regard to the mukaddam system prevailing in work other than mud-work, Sri Barot contended that the award should not be disturbed. It appears that for all practical purposes workers whose work is supervised by mukaddams are employed by the appellant to the workmen individually, the mukaddams deduct their commission from the said wages, and that, according to the award, must be stopped. In our opinion this direction is perfectly reasonable. If the appellant desires that mukaddams are necessary for supervising the work done by groups of workmen, it is perfectly entitled to do so but the mukaddams would not be justified in deducting their commission from the wages earned by the workmen. The mukaddams can and should be taken as semi-skilled workmen and paid as directed by the award so that the mukaddam system may continue but the workmen would get the security of tenure and all other incidental benefits resulting from their employment by the appellant directly as its workmen. In other words, all workmen employed by the appellant in its works should be the employees of the appellant for the purpose even though the mukaddams or contractors may help the appellant in recruiting them and in supervising their work under the appellant's directions.Under S. 3(13)(e) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act XI of 1947, workmen employed by a contractor, who in turn is employed by the employer, become the workmen of the employer himself. This Act is, however, not extended to the appellant's industry. That is why we think it necessary to make it clear that the continuance of the system of mukaddams will not affect the position of the workers employed by the employer company itself. The labour force under the employment of the appellant is indicated by the appellant in its statement in regard to the wages paid at Kandla salt works. They are shown under two categories, departmental and under mukaddams. Workmen shown under both the categories will be treated as workmen employed by the appellant. That being so, we do not think it necessary to interfere with the direction issued by the award in regard to this demand, except that mud work may continue to be done by contract labour.The last point raised is in regard to the fixation of minimum wages. The demand of the respondents is set out by the award in Para. 9 and the appellant's reply in Para. 9(a). The question is then considered on the merits in the succeeding paragraphs and in Para. 13 specific directions are issued category-wise. The arbitrators have observed that the standard of living at Kandla is very high. They examined the evidence which was led before them and came to the concluding that the wages prescribed by them should be the minimum wages payable by the appellant to its employees. The main contention raised by Sri Desai is that in fixing the minimum wages, the arbitrators have not considered the material which should be relevant if the problem is tackled on industry-cum-region basis. Sri Desai, for instance, referred us to the wage structure prescribed by the Labour Arbitration Award in respect of salt works in Jamnager; and he contends that the wages ordered to be paid by the appellant are higher than the Jamnager wages. We do not think we can entertain this contention. In the demand of minimum wages, the capacity of the employer to bear the burden is not relevant. The determination of the question depends on the decision as to the minimum requirements of the employees for bare subsistence. These requirements have been duly considered by the arbitrators and they have fixed the wage structure accordingly. In such a case this Court does not generally entertain pleas intended to effect slight modification in the said wage structure. Such questions are questions of fact on which jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 136 is not generally allowed to be invoked.;