GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) AN industrial dispute arising out of ten demands made by the employees against 13 Hotel and Restaurant institutions in New Delhi, was referred by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi to the Industrial tribunal for adjudication. Reference in Ii. D. No. 581 of 1959 which was made on 9/09/1959, included two Hotels-Claridge's Hotel and Nirula Hotel-, whereas reference in I. D. No. 620/1959 which related to United Coffee House was made on 12/12/1959. These two references were consolidated by the tribunal and were heard together. Out of the demands made by the employees, three demands were rejected by the tribunal ; they were demands Nos. 4, 9 and 10. Demand No. 4 was in regard to medical treatment, No. 9 was in regard to the revision of the hours of work of Chowkidars and No. 10 was in regard to the recognition or appointment of central Negotiating Committee on Association or Union level. The other demands have been partially allowed. The principal amongst these demands were a claim for a wage structure with adequate provision for increment in scales, provision for Provident Fund and Gratuity and Bonus for the years 1956-57, '57-58 and 58-59. There were, other subsidiary demands to which reference would be made later. The award pronounced by the tribunal in these two references has given rise to four appeals by special leave before this court. Appeals Nos. 609-610,/1962 have been preferred by the employers, whereas appeals Nos. 622 and 623/1962 have been filed by the employees. It would be convenient to set out briefly the broad features of the directions issued by the tribunal in respect of the employees' claims. The tribunal has examined the employees' claim with regard to bonus for the three years in question. It took the claim for bonus in respect of each one of the employers, it examined the financial position of the employer for the respective years and determined the question as to the available surplus by the application of the full bench Formula in each individual case. Claims made by the employers for deduction of certain items were examined in the light of the comments made by the employees in respect of them. The usual prior charges were taken into account, and on determining the available surplus, directions were issued for the payment of bonus for the three respective years. In some cases, the employer has been asked to pay bonus for all the three years, while in some others the employer has been asked to pay bonus for one or two years according as the available surplus justified or did not justify the award of bonus for the particular year. The tribunal then proceeded to deal with the other demands made by the employees. The claim made by the employees for suitable uniforms and other apparel according to the nature of the duties of individual workman was, in substance, rejected by the tribunal. It has, however, ordered that all the managements, with the exception of Delhi Restaurant, should give winter uniforms consisting of a woollen coat and a pair of woollen trousers to Waiters, Bearers, Page Boys, Lift Boys, Peons and Chowkidars and Butlers once in three years. Similarly, the managements have been asked to give to 'Masalchis, Sweepers and Malis a woollen jersy once in three years. The tribunal then examined the claim for additional leave facilities and held that there was no justification for granting separately sick leave as such. Three national holidays were allowed by the employers on the January 26, August 15, and October 2. The tribunal has held that three more holidays should be allowed, one for Holi, one for Dussehra and one for Diwali. On the question of the introduction of Provi. dent Fund Scheme and the, Cratuity Scheme, the tribunal noticed the fact that the P. F. Scheme had been introduced by the employers in accordance with the requirements of the relevant statute. The employers' case that in view of the fact that a P.F. Scheme had been introduced, no Gratuity Scheme should be framed, was rejected and a provision has been made for the introduction of the Gratuity Scheme.
(3.) THE tribunal then proceeded to consider the vexed question about the construction of a suitable wage structure, and in dealing with this problem, the tribunal first examined the point as to what should be the minimum wage in those concerns. It appears that before the tribunal it was conceded by the managements that the total pay packet in the case of Hotels should be Rs. 70.00 p.m. inclusive of service charges and in respect of Restaurants Rs. 60.00 p.m. he tribunal came to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would be fair and reasonable if the minimum total wage packet includes Rs. 65.00 p.m. Rs. 30.00 being the minimum basic wage and Rs. 351.00 being a flat dearness allowance payable to each one of the employees. Having thus determined the minimum content of the total wage packet, the tribunal took into account the fact that several establishments gave food and accommodation to some of their employees and it has accordingly directed that for food Rs. 15.00 should be deducted from the D. A. for accommodation Rs. 5.00 should be deducted and Rs. 7.00 or Rs. 3/50 nP. should be deducted for tea according as tea was given twice or once. In other words, having fixed the flat rate of Rs. 35.00 for the payment of D.A. the tribunal provided for appropriate deductions for amenities which the employers gave to their employees in this trade. The tribunal then classified the workmen into unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled, and in the last category it provided for two grades Grade II and Grade I. Having thus classified the employees in three categories, the tribunal prescribed a wage scale for each one of them. In respect of this wage scale, the tribunal has given certain appropriate directions as to the adjustment of the employees in the new wage scale. One of the important directions given in that behalf is on the usual lines that no workman should be prejudicially affected by this process of adjustment and that if he was getting higher emoluments than he would be entitled to by virtue of the adjustment in the new wage scale, he would continue to get the higher emoluments. Then the tribunal considered the question as to whether the award should be given retrospective effect and it held that it should come into effect as from 1/01/1961, the award having been pronounced on 16/03/1962. ;