GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) THE industrial dispute between the appellant, the Filmistan (Private), Ltd., and the respondents, it workmen, which has given rise to the present appeal by special leave, consisted of eight demands made by the respondents against the appellant. Demand 1 was in regard to the classification of the appellant's employees. Demand 2 was in regard to the adjustment of wage-scales point to point. Demand 3 was in regard to the payment of higher wages to an employee who is assigned to do work of a category higher than his own. Demand 4 was in regard to the increment in the wage-scales with retrospective effect from 1 January, 1958; demand 5 had reference to dearness allowance; demand 6 to gratuity; and demands 7 and 8 related to bonus for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 respectively.
(2.) THE tribunal has rejected demands 5 and 6 and it has reserved the consideration of demands 7 and 8. In regard to the claim for classification, it has taken into account the report submitted by the assessors and evolved a scheme for classification. The appellant does not object to this classification. The claim of the respondents for a revision of the wage-structure has also been upheld by the tribunal. Having done so, the tribunal has refused to accede to the respondents' demand that the said wage-structure should have retrospective operation. The present appeal is confined to that part of the award which has revised the wage-structure prevailing in the establishment of the appellant. Sri Aggarwal for the appellant contends that in revising the wage-structure on a very liberal scale, the tribunal does not appear to have applied its mind to the relevant evidence adduced before it by the appellant in support of its case that the appellant would not be able to bear the additional burden imposed by the revised wage-structure. In our opinion, Sri Aggarwal's contention is well-founded and must be upheld.In considering the problem of the revision of the wage-structure, the tribunal has no doubt referred to the true legal position which governs the decision of such questions. It has observed that the financial position of the employer is one of the relevant factors which has to be properly considered before an appreciable revision in the wage-structure can be ordered. It, however, proceeded to revise the wage-structure mainly by reference to Sawarkar award in an industrial dispute between Rajkamal Kala Mandir and its employees. The basis for adopting the said award as a guide obviously appears to be that Rajkamal Kala Mandir is a comparable concern, and so, the award recently pronounced in an industrial dispute of the said concern can be safely taken into account as a guide. It is plain that this assumption is not well-founded. As the award pronounced by the tribunal itself points out, there are several material particulars in which the Rajkamal Kala Mandir is in a much better position than the appellant. That is one infirmity in the approach adopted by the tribunal. It appears that before the tribunal it was urged that the balance sheets produced by the appellant were not reliable and in support of this plea, the respondent referred to the criticism made by the auditors in respect of the balance sheets submitted to them by the appellant for auditing. The respondents also relied upon some comments made by Sri Meher, the industrial tribunal, when he was dealing with a claim for bonus made by the respondents against the appellant for an earlier year. It is, however, clear that too much importance cannot be attached to the criticism made by the auditors, because in so far as one can judge, these comments appear to have been made by the auditors from the point of view of correct account-keeping. It is not easy to see how these comments can be pressed into service for the general and broad contention that the appellant's balance sheets are unreliable.In regard to the comments made by Sri Meher, the position is exactly the same. It appears that when Sri Meher was dealing with the respondents' claim for bonus, some relevant evidence had been withheld by the appellant from Sri Meher, and Sri Meher came to the conclusion that the payments in respect of which material evidence had not been produced, could not be deemed to have been made. This limited criticism cannot support the general contention that the balance sheets produced for subsequent years are untrustworthy. It may, in this connexion, be relevant to point out that the award pronounced by Sri Meher in the said bonus dispute was challenged before this Court by special leave, and the appeal pending in this Court was ultimately compromised by the parties, the respondents agreeing to take one month's bonus instead of two months' which had been awarded by Sri Meher.
(3.) THE finding which the tribunal appears to have made in the present proceedings in regard to the character of the balance sheets is very vague and gives us no indication as to what extent the tribunal was prepared to accept the balance sheets as reliable : "For reasons already discussed, " says the tribunal, "implicit trust cannot be placed on some figures of profit and loss submitted and the balance sheets produced for judging its true financial position." Now, it is clear that in concrete terms, this statement means nothing at all. The failure of the tribunal to consider the balance sheets and arrive at its own decision as to the financial position of the appellant in fairly precise terms is another infirmity from which the award suffers. ;