DWIVEDI, J. - (1.) M/s. Woolcombers of India Limited have their factory at Jagatdal, 21 miles from Calcutta. They shall hereafter be addressed as Woolcombers. They are the appellants in this case. The respondents are their workmen employed in the factory at Jagatdal. They are represented by two Unions: Woolcombers Workers' Union and the Issac Holdens Mazdoor Union. On June 4, 1969, the West Bengal Government referred an industrial dispute between the Woolcombers and their workmen to the 6th Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta for adjudication. As many as 10 points of dispute were referred. Parties filed their written statements and produced their oral and documentary evidence. After examining the evidence, the Tribunal gave its award on September 26, 1969. All the referred points except a part of point No. 1 and point No. 7 were decided against the workmen. Point No. 7 related to the categorisation of workmen in the factory. They were catagorised into four classes: (1) highly skilled workmen, (2) skilled workmen, (3) semi-skilled workmen and (4) unskilled workmen. The finding on point No. 7 is not impugned in this appeal. A part of point No. 1 relating to the fixation of grades and scales of pay was decided against the workmen. There is no appeal against this Part of the award by the workmen. The remaining part of point No. 1 relating to the fixation of the basic wage and dearness allowance was decided in favour of the workmen. The basic wage of the workmen was fixed in the following manner: JUDGEMENT_318_3_1974Html1.htm 320 They were also given an increment of Rs. 10.00 over the basic wage. The basic wage of other employees was fixed in the following manner: JUDGEMENT_318_3_1974Html2.htm
(2.) BEFORE the award, all the workers were getting dearness allowance at the flat rate of Rs. 94.10 p. The award has varied the dearness allowance in the following manner: (1) Employees getting Rs. 100 or below per month - dearness allowance at Rs. 150/- per month. (2) Employees getting between Rs. 100 and 200 per month-dearness allowance at Rs. 60/- per month for the second Rs. 100/-. (3) Employees getting between Rs. 200 and 300 per month-dearness allowance at Rs. 20/- for the additional Rs. 100/-. This rate of dearness allowance will remain in force so long as the point for the cost of living fluctuates between 650 and 750. If the point goes beyond 750, per 5 points there will be an increase of Re. 1/-. Similarly, if the point goes below 650, per 5 points there will be a decrease of Re. 1/-. The Tribunal has not stated the reasons in support of its conclusions. This criticism of Shri Chaudhary, counsel for the Woolcombers, appears to us to be right. As regards basic wages, the Tribunal says only this: "I am inclined to lay down the basic wages of the workmen... Those who are highly skilled workmen... ....will get Rs. 32/- per week as their basic wages. Those who are skilled workmen... ....will get Rs.. 28/- per week as their basic wages. Those who are semi-skilled workmen... .will get Rs. 25/- per week as their basic wages... ....Those who are unskilled workmen will get Rs. 22.50 P. per week as their basic wages." As regards the basic wages of other employees, the Tribunal says: "Now in the light of the enhanced pay as revised by me in respect of skilled. unskilled, semi-skilled and highly skilled workers, I want to revise" the existing wages of clerks, drivers, durwan, sweeper, laboratory assistants and overlookers.
(3.) IT may be observed that the first passage quoted by us states only the conclusions. IT does not give the supporting reasons. The second passage quoted by us states merely one of the reasons. The other relevant reasons are not disclosed. The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Art. 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases this investment of time and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions. So' it is necessary to emphasise that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. Shri Sanghi, counsel for the Woolcombers Workers' Union, seeks to explain away the absence of reasons in the award by the argument that the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage. We are unable to accept this argument. Even the fixation of the bare minimum wage is the result of a process of reasoning. There must he supporting reasons for the quantification of the bare minimum wage. But, as already stated, the Tribunal has not given any reasons at all in support of the basic wages fixed for the factory workmen. More importantly, the Tribunal does not appear to have fixed the bare minimum wage. There are several decisions of this Court on the meaning of the bare minimum wage. We shall refer only to one of them: Kamani Metals and Alloys v. Their Workmen, (1967) 2 Lab LJ 55 at p. 58 =(AIR l967 SC 1175). Hidayatullah J. there said: "To cope with these differences certain principles on which wages are fixed have been stated from time to time by this Court. Broadly speaking the first principle is that there is a minimum wage which, in any event must be paid, irrespective of the extent of profits, the financial condition of the establishment or the availability of workmen on lower wages. This minimum wage is independent of the kind of industry and applies to all alike big or small. It sets the lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity. The second principle is that wages must be fair, that is to say, sufficiently high to provide a standard family with food shelter clothing, medical care and education of children appropriate to the workman but not at a rate exceeding his wage-earning capacity in the class of establishment to which he belongs. A fair wage is thus related to the earning capacity and the workload. It must, however, be realised that "fair wage" is not "living wage" by which is meant a wage which is sufficient to provide not only the essentials above mentioned but a fair measure of frugal comfort with an ability to provide for old age and evil days. Fair wage lies between the minimum wage, which must be paid in any event, and the living wage, which is the goal." ;