- (1.) An industrial dispute having been raised by the workmen concerned was referred to the Industrial Tribunal respondent No. 2. It gave its award dated 15-2-1968 which was duly published in the U. P. Gazette dated 8th June, 1968, in terms of Section 6 (3) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The appellants challenged that award before this Court by a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the course of the arguments only four points were urged before the learned single Judge. It was contended before him that as there was a direction in that award that the wage scale fixed in it shall remain in operation for a period of ten years, the award was illegal in so far as it was contrary to the provisions of Section 6-B of the said Act. This contention found favour with the learned single Judge and that part of the award which made the said provision was, accordingly, quashed. The other three contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were not accepted. The award was, accordingly, modified. The petitioners aggrieved by that decision have filed this special appeal.
(2.) For the appellants, it was urged at the outset that inasmuch as there was no reference to the Industrial Tribunal to decide a dispute with regard to extra duty allowance, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make its award with regard to that allowance. In this connection, it was also urged that even if the Industrial Tribunal could adjudicate upon the said dispute, the award relating to that matter was contrary to the provisions of Secs. 6 and 7 of the U. p. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962. The other ground on which the award was impugned was that the workmen of Nishat Cinema had entered into an agreement with their employers. That agreement was duly registered and was, therefore, binding on the workmen. The award which runs counter to that agreement, could not. therefore, be sustained. We shall deal with these points in seriatim.
(3.) The State Government, by its notification, dated 28-6-1968 had referred an Industrial Dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act in the following terms: "Should the employers be required to revise and/or fix the grades and scales of pay and dearness allowance of their workmen ? If so, from which date and with what other details ?" The industrial dispute thus covered the revision and/or fixation of grades and scales of pay and dearness allowance and also the date from which they were to operate. The grades and scales of pay and dearness allowance would obviously not only include the basic wages but also, in our view, the other allowances which would form part of the pay structure of the workmen concerned. The term 'wages' has been defined in Section 2 (y) of the Act as meaning all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employments, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment, or of work done under such employment, and includes such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to, the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of foodgrains or other articles and any travelling concession. The definition of the term 'wages' is thus wide enough to include extra duty allowance and any dispute relating to the demand of extra duty allowance would, therefore, be an industrial dispute. The reference in the instant case relating to the fixation and revision of the grade and scale of pay as also the dearness allowance, therefore, covered the dispute pertaining to extra duty allowance as well. That apart, the employers had, as would appear from the impugned award, conceded that there was no dispute between the parties that dearness allowance should be fixed separately from the basic wage and if any other allowance is payable it should also be paid separately. We are, therefore, of the view that the Industrial Tribunal did not act beyond the terms of reference while making its award with regard to extra duty allowance. Further, it may be noticed in this connection that the Industrial Tribunal had framed an issue 4 (b) pertaining to this matter and no objection was raised by the employers- appellants before the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that the matter relating to extra duty allowance was beyond reference nor was the award impugned before the learned single Judge on this point. Hence in either view- of the matter, this objection which has been raised for the first time before us on appeal, does not survive.;