- (1.) This appeal by special leave from an award of the Industrial tribunal, Andhra 'pradesh in 1. D. No. 6 of 1968 is analogous to Civil No. 635 of 1967 in which judgment has been delivered to-day. The order of reference, dated 25/01/1968, was as follows: "(A) Whether the demand of the workmen for a share in the incentive payment by way of incentive price allowed by government of India is justified (B) If so, what should be the basis and the quantum payable fur the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 -
(2.) The Cement Control Orders noted in Civil No. 635 of 1967 equally apply to the appellant before us in this appeal. As will be noted from that judgment, under the Control Order of 1961 as amended in 1963. the appellant entitled to charge Rs. 69.50 under Paragraph (A) of the Schedule became further entitled to a further sum of Rs. 5.50 per tonne in excess of 1,15,000. 00 tons in any year of production ending October 31. The appellant had started manufacturing cement at its works at Macherla in 1958, is rated capactity being one lakh ton Up to 1962 the production capacity of that unit was never reached. The second unit of the appellant with a rated capacity of 1,50,000. 00 tonnes commenced production in October 1962. Relying on the figures disclosed from the records, Mr. Srinivasamurty argued that as the target figure of production of 1,15,000. 00 tons had never 'been reached in the first unit and had been fixed only with a view to stimulate production in the second unit so that the two together could benefit by the increase in price covered by Paragraph (B) of the Schedule to the Cement Control Order, 1961 (as amended in 1963) the question of incentive payment never arose. He sought to fortify his argument by reference to the Cement Control Order of 26/08/1964, which modified Paragraph (B) of the Schedule to original Order to some extent but made no amendment so far as the figure of Rs. 5.50 per tonne payable to the appellant was concerned, column 3 of the table containing the same insertion as it did before namely, 1,15,000. 00 tonnes in any year ending October 31 in the case of K. G. P. Ltd. He also drew our attention to the oral evidence of Shri G. Ramanathan, Under secretary to the government of India, examined on behalf of the appellant before the Industrial tribunal. According to this -witness government had to consider the cases of new units which had incurred higher capital costs. So far as the appellant was concerned in Paragraph (A) 'it was placed at the lowest group i e. , its ceiling price being fixed at Rs. 69-50. The second plant of this unit commenced production in the middle of 1962 and the government passed a resolution that new units and units with substantial expansion would be given the higher price. Further an additional price called incentive was granted to certain factories to encourage the production, to put forward greater effort within the rated capacity. The incentive was paid only for two calendar years 1963 and 1964 and was discontinued from 1/01/1965. But even then the extra price paid to unitswhich had put up new plants or had undertaken substantial expansion was continued and it was because of this that the price of Rs. 751- paid to the Macherla unit was retained.
(3.) Mr. Ramamurty argued that there was no reason to differentiate this case from the cases of producers, involved in Civil No. 635/1967. Although we recognise that there is much force in the argument of Mr. Srinivasamurty that the appellant was treated by government in a way somewhat different from the producers involved in the other appeals, in view of our conclusion in that appeal that the extra amount available to the producer was as and by way of price. It is not necessary to examine the argument of Mr. Srinivasamurty in arty greater detail.;