WANCHOO, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises out of an award of the industrial tribunal, Delhi. A dispute between 34 cinemas and their employees was referred for adjudication to the tribunal embracing a number of questions. In the Present appeal, however, we are only concerned with three matters : (1) pay-scale and dearness allowance, (2) leave, and (3) holidays.
(2.) THE case of the workmen-respondents was that pay-scale and dearness allowance had been fixed as far back as 1951 and required upward revision. The workmen also claimed that the provision for leave and holidays required liberalization. The appellants contended that there was no proof of any material change in the circumstances since 1951 and therefore there was also a dispute between the parties whether the cinemas should be classified into three classes or into two. As to leave and holidays, the appellants claimed that no case had been made out for any change. The tribunal accepted the case of the workmen and held that there had been material change in circumstances since 1951 as compared to 1956, when the reference was made. It also upheld the contention of the workmen that the cinemas should be classified into two classes and not into three. On this basis it increased the pay-scales and dearness allowance after taking into account all the circumstances including the financial condition of the appellants. It also made certain changes in the matter of leave and holidays in favour of the workmen. The award was made on 9 November 1959, and it was ordered that the pay-scales and dearness allowance awarded thereunder would come into force from 1 January 1960. Thereupon the appellants obtained special leave from this Court, and that is how the matter has come up before us. It may be mentioned however that out of the 34 cinemas which were parties before the tribunal only 14 have come up in appeal, and the remaining 20 belonging to both classes A and B have apparently accepted the award of the tribunal.We shall take the three matters in dispute seriatim. Turning first to pay-scales and dearness allowance, the contention of the appellants is twofold. In the first place it to urged that there is no proof of change of circumstances since 1951 to justify an upward revision of the scales of pay and dearness allowance. Secondly it is urged that the tribunal went wrong in not classifying the cinemas into three classes as contended for on behalf of the appellants. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is in our opinion beyond doubt that there has been material change in circumstances since 1951 when the grades of pay and dearness allowance were last fixed, particularly when it is taken into account that the award is ordered to come into force from 1 January 1960. The main change of circumstance is the rise in the index of cost of living since 1951 as compared to 1 January 1960, from which date the award has to come into force. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the tribunal was right in holding that a case had been made out for an upward revision of pay-scales and dearness allowance, which is not linked to cost of living index but is on a sliding scale according to wages.
(3.) TURNING now to the question of classification of the cinemas, the tribunal has classified them into two classes. The classification is based on gross revenue, and the dividing line fixed by the tribunal is at rupees four lakhs. Cinemas with gross revenue of rupees four lakhs and above have been put in class A, whereas cinemas with gross revenue of below rupees four lakhs have been put in class B. It has not been disputed that the cinemas had to be divided into classes, for the appellants' case was also that they should he divided into classes, though they urged that the classes should be three in number and not two, as contended for by the respondents. Further we are of opinion that the criterion of gross revenue taken by the tribunal as the basis of classification appears to be a satisfactory criterion. Even the appellants' case was that classification should be made on the basis of gross revenue, though what they meant by gross revenue was somewhat different from what the tribunal has taken as the gross revenue. According to the tribunal the gross revenue meant the total receipts of a cinema without any deduction whatsoever. The appellants however contended that gross revenue should be calculated after deducting entertainment tax and distributor's share of the receipts. There is no doubt that total receipts of a cinema include entertainment tax as well as what is paid by the exhibitors (namely, the cinema) to the distributor as a charge for exhibiting a film. The appellants therefore wanted that gross revenue should be calculated after deducting entertainment tax and distributor's share from the total receipts and thereafter cinemas should be classified into three classes, namely -(i) those with gross revenue so calculated of less than rupees one lakh, (ii) those with gross revenue of more than rupees one lakh but up to rupees two and a half lakhs, and (iii) those with gross revenue of over rupees two and a half lakhs. ;