Grover, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. This Court, while granting special leave, confined it only to the question of giving of uniforms to welders and winders.
(2.) The appellant has a factory employing on an average 200 workers. On February 12, l968 a reference was made by the Government of Mysore or adjudication to the Tribunal of six points which were in dispute. Point No. 4 was whether all workers should be provided with a pair of uniforms and a pair of shoes per year. In the written statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal it was submitted that it was giving uniforms to its watchmen, drivers sweepers, canteen workers and such other workmen who were to be provided with protective clothing under the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was not considered necessary that uniforms should be issued to other classes of workers.
(3.) The Tribunal was of the view that a general demand that all workers should be provided with uniforms was not reasonable and was contrary to precedents. But it referred to the evidence produced on behalf of the workers according to which the turners and the winders had to do such work that their clothes got damaged or there was a likelihood of their getting damaged. As regards the winders it was observed that industrial operations have become so complex and complicated that for the purpose of determining whether turners, welders and winders should get clothes because it was likely that their clothes will get spoiled on account of the nature of work which they were performing, it was the totality of all operations and circumstances that should be taken into consideration. This is what the Tribunal proceeded to say:- " It may be that if the Turners and Winders work at the spot at which they are expected to work their clothes normally are not likely to get soiled. This however does not mean that the chances of their clothes getting soiled or damaged during the course of work which they perform, are far fetched or too remote." The Tribunal also referred to the other evidence produced and all the other circumstances and was of the view that considering the nature of the work which these three categories of workmen were performing and the type of machines with which they were dealing there was no scope for contending that the possibility of the clothes of these workmen getting soiled or damaged was too remote or far fetched. The Tribunal, therefore, held after also taking into consideration the additional financial burden involved in supplying uniforms to these categories of workmen that it was most unreasonable to deny the supply of uniforms to them.;