WANCHOO, J. - (1.) AN industrial dispute between the appellants and their workmen was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The appellants carry on the business of excavating gypsum in Bhadwasi under a contract with the Associated Cement Companies, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company). The disputes related to (i) wages, (ii) bonus for the year 1958-59 and 1959-1960, (iii) holidays and leave, (iv) provident funds, and (v) housing facilities.
(2.) THE workmen demanded increase in wages along with dearness allowance, increase in the number of days of casual leave and national and festival holidays, introduction of provident fund scheme at 8 1/2 per cent, bonus for the two years in dispute at the rate of four months' wages and finally housing facilities or house-rent allowance in lieu thereof. The appellants contended that it had not the financial capacity to pay any increase in wages because they were working under a contract with the company and the amount provided in the contract for payment to the appellants did not admit of any increase in wages. Further the appellants contended that the wages paid by them were more than the wages paid in the same industry in the region and therefore there was no case for any increase. Similarly the appellants contended that their financial capacity would not permit the introduction of any provident fund scheme. As for bonus the appellants' contention was that there was no available surplus from which any bonus could be paid. In the matter of holidays the appellants were prepared to allow some increase but not to the extent demanded by the workmen. Finally, as to housing facilities, the appellants contended that they had not financial capacity to provide residential quarters for workmen as demanded or to give any house-rent allowance. They also pointed out that they had provided some rest-houses already.The tribunal held, after saying that it had kept in view the financial condition of the appellant, that wages should be increased and provided for increase all-round. It is unnecessary at this stage to refer to the increase allowed by the tribunal in detail. As to holidays, the tribunal held that the present weekly holiday, which was being given to the workmen without payment of wages, should in future be given with wages. As to festival holidays it accepted the concession of the appellants and increased them and fixed their number at eight per years. As to casual leave it ordered that workmen should get casual leave for ten days with wages after putting in 240 days' continuous service and in case of sickness, casual leave would be granted on production of medical certificate or on personal satisfaction of the authority concerned. As to provident fund, the tribunal ordered that a provident found scheme should be introduced and deduction should be made at the rate of 8 per cent of total emoluments of each workman per year with an equal amount contributed by the appellants. As to housing facilities, the tribunal directed that the appellants should construct aluminium houses if they liked and if they were cheaper and let them on rent to the workmen at the rate of Rs. 1 or Rs. 2 per month or the appellants should construct more huts, shelter houses and the like so that the workmen who would like to remain at the quarry or the railway station, as the case might be, were provided with quarters. The tribunal was of the view that such an arrangement would not enhance the financial burden of the appellants and directed that this scheme should be given effect to within three years of the award. In this view of the matter it refused to grant house-rent allowance. Finally as to bonus, the tribunal made necessary calculations and came to the conclusion that there was net available surplus in each year in dispute and awarded bonus amounting to Rs. 9, 227-8-0 for the first year and Rs. 9, 706 for the second year. The appellants have come to this Court from this award by special leave and have attacked the award on all the five matters referred to above.We shall deal with these five matters one by one. But before we do so, we should like to refer to the question of financial capacity of the appellants to bear the burden imposed by the award. Though the actual burden imposed by the various provisions in the award has not been worked out, it is clear that a substantial burden has been cast on the appellants by increase in wages, by provision of provident fund, by making weekly holiday a paid holiday in addition to paid festival holiday and ten days' paid casual leave and the order relating to housing facilities. It is true that the tribunal has said at various places in its award that it had kept the financial condition of the appellants in view and that it was of opinion that there would not be any appreciable burden thrown on the appellants, but it has not considered the question of financial capacity of the appellants properly. Now it appears that the appellants are working the mines under a contract with the company. The contract was entered as far back as 1940 and seems to be continuing. Under that contract payment to be made by the company to appellants is indicated and it is out that payment by the company that the appellants have to meet the expenses of running the mines. It may be added that after the contract, the company gave certain increases in 1948 by which it increased the payment to Rs. 6-2-3 per ton, which included 9 annas per ton as the contractors' profit. This rate was further increased to Rs. 6-5-3 per ton from 1 November, 1960. It is true that it may be possible for the appellants to ask the company to increase the rate; even so it is not in the power of the appellants to compel the company to fix a rate which will necessarily provide for all the increases made by the tribunal. This aspect of the matter must be borne in mind in fixing the wages and that naturally limits the capacity of the appellants to bear the burden of the increase of wages and other burdens thrown on it by the award.Let us, therefore, in this background consider the various matters in dispute which now survive. We shall first take the question of holidays. The tribunal has provided that in future there will be a paid weekly holiday instead of an unpaid weekly holiday. It can not be said that this decision of the tribunal is unsupportable, for it seems to us that a paid weekly holiday should generally be the goal which industrial adjudication must keep in mind. Though therefore there is no reason for interference with this provision of the award, it must be borne in mind that this one provision alone results in an increase of wages by one-sixth. Further, the tribunal has increased the paid festival holidays from two to eight. This has also thrown additional burden on the appellants. Finally the tribunal has provided ten days' paid casual leave per year while there was none so far. Thus on these two scores also the appellants will have to allow sixteen days' leave with wages and that again increases the annual burden by about 4 1/2 per cent, which taken together with the weekly paid holiday increases the wages by about 20 per cent per year. We see no reason to interfere with the provision as so festival holidays and casual leave. But we must bear in mind the increased burden on the appellants by the institution of paid weekly holidays, eight paid festival holiday and ten day's paid casual leave. These three together result in increase of wages to the extent of 20 per cent. This has to be borne in mind when we come to the actual increase in wages.
(3.) THEN we come to the question of housing facilities. The tribunal, as already indicated, has directed the appellants to provide aluminium houses or at any rate huts, shelter houses and the like. The question whether an employer should be asked to provide quarters for his workmen was examined by this Court in Patna Electric Supply Company, Ltd. v. Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union [1959 - II L.L.J. 366] and it was held that"It would be inexpedient in the present financial condition of the industries in the country to impost the additional burden of providing housing facilities on them which should be the primary responsibility of the State.";