WANCHOO, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Special leave in an industrial matter. The appellants are the workmen of the respondent which carries on a number of industries. In the present appeal we are concerned with the Cawnpore woollen Mills branch of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the mills.) There was a dispute between the respondent and its workmen with respect to wages and it was referred to the tribunal for adjudication in the following terms : "Should the employers of British India Corporation, Ltd. (Cawnpore Woollen Mills branch), Kanpur, be required to increase the wages of their workmen and clerks ? If so with what details."
(2.) SEVEN issues were raised by the tribunal in connexion with the matter in dispute but we are not concerned with most of them in the present appeal. It is only necessary to refer to two points which have been urged on behalf of the appellants before us. The first is that the tribunal should have consolidated dourness allowance with wages and inasmuch as it held that this question had not been referred to it, it was in error. Secondly, the decision of the tribunal relating to increase in wages with respect to four categories, namely - (i) Operatives in spinning and weaving section, (ii) engineering and power-house workers, (iii) clerks, and (iv) supervisors, was also challenged as incorrect. We shall deal with these points seriatim. Taking first the question of amalgamation of dourness allowance with wages, the tribunal held that this question had not been referred to it. We have already set out the term of reference, and it is obvious that there is no express reference in that term to the amalgamation of dearness allowance with wages. It is, however, urged on behalf of the appellants that this question arises incidentally out of the matter under reference and should have been dealt with by the tribunal particularly as dearness allowance is part of wages, though the two have been treated separately for various reasons. It is true that in a sense dearness allowance is part of wages : but we are of opinion that the question of amalgamation of dearness allowance with basic wages raises specific and distinct issues some of which may be of far-reaching effect in the region to which this industry belongs and such a question cannot be considered as a mere incidental matter arising out of the reference as to increase in wages. Increase in wages is a very different matter and such an increase would not necessarily comprise even increase the question of amalgamation of dearness allowance with basic wages. We agree with the tribunal that if it was the intention of government that the matter of amalgamation of dearness allowance and basic wages should be considered by tribunal there should have been a specific term in the reference to the effect. In the absence of such a terms, it was not possible for the tribunal to consider this question and thus make a radical change in the pattern of wages prevalent in the region as if by side-wind. We therefore reject the contention of the appellants in this behalf.Turning now to the question of wages, the tribunal pointed out that there was no woollen mill in the region. It had therefore to decide with what other industry the wages prevalent in the mills had to be compared. It came to the conclusion that the nearest industry which could be taken into consideration for purpose of comparison was the cotton textile industry. It pointed out that both cotton textiles and woollen textiles are parts of the textile industry, the difference being only in the material used. It therefore held that it would be proper to consider the wages paid in the cotton textile industry in Kanpur for purposes of comparison. We are of opinion that the tribunal cannot be said to be in error when it took the cotton textile industry in Kanpur for purposes of comparison as there are no other woollen mills in that region.
(3.) THE tribunal then considered first the wages of operatives in the spinning and weaving section. It pointed out that the wage board in the cotton industry had recommended an ad hoc increase in the wages of operatives in cotton mills and that recommendation had been carried out. It therefore allowed the same increase in the wages of operatives in the mills with this difference that the increase was allowed from January 1, 1961 instead of January 1, 1960 which was the date in the case of cotton textile industry. The reason for this difference appears to be that the reference was made in June, 1961 and the tribunal thought it expedient to begin the increase from January 1, 1961. In the circumstance, we are unable to see anything wrong with the view taken by the tribunal as to the extent of the increase and also as to the date from which the increase should begin. The contention of the appellants on this head must therefore fail.;