TYAGI, J - (1.) THIS writ application has keen filed by the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. , Jaipur (hereinafter called the company) under Art 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur dated 11th November, 1965.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner company is that along with its main business of running the sugar factory at Ganganagar, it carries on the business of the distillation of liquor and in that connection it has to manage certain ware-houses in the State of Rajasthan. One of the warehouses under the management of the company is at Jhotwara near Jaipur. It is contended by the petitioner company that upto 30th of November, ly63, it was paying Rs. 50/- per month as wages to the workmen working at Jhotwara, but looking to the increase in prices, the company granted an ad hoc increase of Rs. 10/- per month in December, 1963 in the wages of its workmen. As the prices were continuously rising, another increase in the wages was ordered on 1st of February, 1964 and an ad hoc increase of Rs. 5/- was allowed. Soon after this increase in the wages, the company felt necessity of increasing the wages once again and on 1st of August, 1964 it again raised the wages of the workmen from Rs 65/- to Rs. 75/- per month. It so appears that the workmen were not satisfied with the increase of Rs 20/- in their wages within this period and their opinion therefore raised a demand for further increase in their wages and gave a notice of strike to the company. THE matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer but no settlement could be reached and the Conciliation Officer had to submit a failure report. THEreafter the Government thought that industrial dispute was in existence and, therefore, it referred the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication for which the following reference was published in the Official Gazette: "that the workmen of Jhotwara Distillery Ware House, Jaipur West be given ad-hoc increment of Rs. 5/- in their wages with effect from 1st February, 1964 and that they should be paid Rs. 100/- as their Minimum Wages and that the wages of the workmen be further increased by Rs. 20/- over the wages they were getting on 31st March, 1964. " It may be! mentioned that the further increase of Rs. 20/- that was demanded by the workmen over the wages that they were getting on 31st of March, 1964, was understood by both the parties as the grant of the dearness allowance to the workmen. The first demand in the reference of an ad-hoc increment of Rs. 5/- in the wages with effect from 1st of February, 1964, was, however, already accepted by the company because an ad hoc increase of Rs. 5/- was granted by the company from 1st of February, 1964, therefore it was not pressed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued notice to the company as well as to the union of the workmen. The union was represented by Shri H. K. Vyas whereas the company was represented by Shri L. D. Chaturvedi. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal classified the workmen in the Jhotwara Distillery Warehouse in three categories, viz. (1) unskilled workmen, (2) semi-skilled workmen, and (3) skilled workmen, and fixed a wage structure for all these three types of workers in the warehouse. The learned Judge presiding over the Tribunal fixed a wage structure of Rs 60-2-70 plus a fixed D. A. of Rs. 30/- to the unskilled workmen whereas for semi-skilled workmen the wage structure prescribed was Rs. 70-3 85 plus a fixed D. A of Rs. 30/- and for stilled workmen the wage structure fixed by the Tribunal was Rs. 80-4-100 plus a fixed D. A. of Rs. 30/- per month. While fixing the aforementioned wage structure for the workmen of the company at Jhotwara, the Tribunal further directed that in fixing the workmen in the new grades, two advance increments shall be allowed to those who have put in more than three years service. The Tribunal also held that Shri Vyas conceded that out of 81 workmen working at the warehouse, 56 may be classed as unskilled workmen. Those workmen who were discharging the duties of placing bottles for filling, measuring them, removing them and placing them on the table lor being sealed, placing seals on bottles, removing of bottles from the sealing machines, putting labels on bottles and checking the seals be placed in the category of semi-skilled workmen. It also held that two out of the six persons who were employed as leave reserve may be kept in the category of semi-skilled workmen. From the award given by the Tribunal it so appears that the representative of the company had admitted before the Tribunal that those four persons who were attending the duties at siphon and operating the sealing machines had to shoulder higher responsibilities and, therefore, they may be put in the category of semi-skilled workmen, but Shri Vyas demanded that these four workers along with the Jamadar may be placed in the category of skilled workmen. The plea of Shri Vyas, however, prevailed with the Tribunal and the aforementioned five persons were asked to be treated by the company as the skilled workmen. The Tribunal pronounced its award on 11th of November, 1965, which, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, has been published in the Official Gazette. The company has challenged the said award given by the Tribunal, inter alia, on the grounds that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to classify the workmen into three different categories, nor could the Tribunal fix the wage structure for the workmen as was done by it by prescribing the grades for different categories of the workmen. The grievance of the petitioner further is that while fixing the wage structure, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the industry-cum-regional formula and did not examine the wage structure of similar industries in that area and decided the grades in a most arbitrary manner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that the Tribunal had gone beyond what was demanded by the union for which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. A reply has been filed on behalf of the Jhotwara Distillery Workmen Karam-chari Union, respt. No 3, in which it has been urged that the representatives of the company had themselves placed before the Tribunal the wage structure of the workmen that was decided by the Wage Board for Sugar Industry at Ganganagar and it was on that basis that the company itself demanded from the Tribunal that the wages of the workmen may be fixed in accordance with that wage structure. Tribunal, after taking into consideration the rising prices of the essential commodities during these five years when the Wage Board had prescribed the wage structure for the workmen of sugar industries at Ganganagar, fixed the wage structure form the workmen at Jhotwara. It was also averred that the representative of the company during the course of his cross examination admitted that the rates of wages prevailing in a similar industry of the Milk Supply Scheme at Jaipur were provisionally fixed and therefore the wage structure of the milk supply scheme could not form the basis for determining the wage structure for the workmen of the company at Jhotwara. According to the respondent, the Tribunal classified the workmen at the instance of the representative of the company who had frankly conceded to classify the workmen in three categories. It was also averred that the minimum wage of Rs. 100/- and the Dearness Allowance of Rs. 20/- was demanded by the union on the basis of the 15th Labour Conference formula which was accepted in the year 1960. An affidavit was also filed by the respondent before the Tribunal giving out certain data with regard to the wage structure in certain other industries and this material was made available to the Tribunal to arrive at the reasonable wage structure for the workmen of the company. During the course of the arguments, Mr. Mridul, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, urged that if the entire wage structure is properly scrutinised, then it cannot be said that the Tribunal has gone beyond what was demanded by the workmen because the total en emoluments had not in any manner exceeded Rs. 120/- which was the demand put up by the union and referred to the Tribunal in its reference order. In these circumstances, it was urged that this Court should be slow to interfere with the award given by the Tribunal in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid considerable stress on this question that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to give an award in the form it has given. The matter that was referred to the Tribunal was the fixation of the minimum wages and not the wage structure, nor was the Tribunal asked to classify the workmen and then to fix the wage structure for them. The Tribunal, according to Mr. Gupta, exceeded its jurisdiction in giving its award in the form it has been published. The substantial question, therefore, that is to be determined by me is whether the Tribunal has really exceeded its jurisdiction in fixing the wage structure of the workmen by classifying the workmen into three categories and then fixing the grades for each category. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, contended that classification of workmen is implicit in the fixation of the wage structure because the Tribunal cannot fix the wages without examining the nature of the work which the workmen are required to perform during the discharge of their duties. It was also contended that this classification has been made by the Tribunal with the consent of the company and, therefore, the petitioner company is not competent to challenge it in this writ application. Learned counsel also urged that this classification is covered by the provisions of sec. 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) which permits the Tribunal to decide the questions which are incidental to the main questions referred to it under sec. 10 of the Act. Sec. 10 (4) of the Act reads as follows - "where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. " This language limits the adjudication by the Tribunal only to those points which have been referred by the State Government to the Tribunal and also to matters which are incidental thereto. It cannot, therefore, go beyond the points referred to it or which are incidental thereto. The question, therefore, is whether classification of workmen is a matter incidental to the point which was referred by the State Government to the Tribunal. I have already reproduced the dispute referred to the Tribunal in the foregoing part of this judgment. The dispute that was raised by the union was that the workmen should be paid Rs. 100/- as their minimum wages and that the wages of workmen be further increased by Rs. 20/- per month. This further increase of Rs. 20/- has been understood by both the parties as the grant of Dearness Allowance. As observed above, the first part of the dispute demanding the increment of Rs. 5/- per month in the wages with effect from 1st February, 1964 had disappeared because that increase had already been granted by the management to the workmen before the matter actually came up before the Tribunal. From the perusal of the award, it is clear that there were 81 workmen who were working in the warehouse. Out of 81 workmen one is a Jamadar. Six persons have been employed for leave reserve and the duties of the 18 workmen have been described as follows: 4 men bring bottles for being filled. 1 man hands over bottles for filling the Siphon. 1 man looks after Siphon. 1 man looks to the measurement of filled bottles. 1 man removes measured bottles to the table for sealing. 1 man places seals on the bottles. 1 man seals them. 1 man removes bottles from the machine after they have been sealed. 2 men place labels on the bottles. 4 men remove the filled bottles to the warehouse. 1 man checks the seals. It was admitted by the representative of the company that those persons who attend to the siphon and operate the sealing machines have to shoulder higher responsibilities and, therefore, it was conceded by the representative of the company that those four persons may be put in the semi-skilled category. This discussion in the award gives an indication that the company had agreed to the categorisation of the workmen before the Tribunal and that according to the company four persons could be placed as semi skilled persons whereas the other persons should be treated as unskilled workmen. Shri Vyas, who appeared on behalf of the union, did not however agree to this categorisation as suggested by the company and pleaded before the Tribunal that four persons who were working on the sealing machine and siphon may be kept in the category of skilled persons whereas other persons who were working for bringing the bottles, putting them under siphon and labelling them, etc, may be kept in semi-skilled category. The learned Judge presiding the Tribunal accepted the contention of Shri Vyas but while doing so he did not give any reasons as to what type of skill was required for those persons who were bringing the bottle's for filling, measuring them and removing them for being sealed on a table and then taking them from that table, etc. , etc. Mr. Gupta contended that even if it is admitted that categorisation was conceded by the company, the Tribunal could not classify the workmen in three categories without referring to the skill that is required for the purposes of the duties for which the workmen were engaged. He also urged that the entire categorisation has been made without any sound basis for holding the four persons and the Jamadar as skilled workmen and the other 18 persons semi-skilled.
(3.) WHILE fixing the wages, whether they are minimum wages for fair wages, it is necessary for the authority who is entrusted with this task to see the nature of the work which the workman is required to perform and as such it can safely be said that this classification of workmen is a matter incidental to the point referred as an industrial dispute to the Tribunal. In this particular case, it is clear that the company itself conceded that the classification was necessary in order to fix the wages and it is why it was agreed by the representative of the company that four persons who were attending the siphon and the scaling machines may be classified as the semi-skilled workmen as they are required to shoulder higher responsibilities. Taking this aspect of the case, I can say that the Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction when it went to categorise the workmen for fixing the wages for them. From the award it is clear that the parties did not agree on this question that the workmen should be classified in three categories or in two categories. Except the four persons who were required to work on siphon and sealing machines, the other workmen have not been accepted by the company as skilled workmen. The nature of the duties that are to be discharged by these workmen, who have been placed in semi skilled category, has been enumerated by the Tribunal in its award, but the Tribunal has not dealt with this question as to how and what type of skill was required to perform the duty of placing the bottles for filling and removing them on the table for being sealed. There are certain persons who are entrusted with the task of checking the seals only whereas some of them are required to put the labels on bottles. What type of labels are put on the bottles has not been shown to this Court, nor has it been discussed by the Tribunal in its award. The Tribunal has also classified the Jamadar as a skilled workman without dealing with the nature of the work that the Jamadar has to perform to discharge his duty. In my opinion, the Tribunal while classifying the workmen in three categories did not apply its mind seriously to the nature of the work on the basis of which such classification could be justified. Simply because Shri H. K. Vyas appearing on behalf of the union demanded these three categories, there is nothing on the record to show that the workmen could be justifiably categorised into three categories. In my opinion, the classification has been based on no material placed before the Tribunal and therefore such a classification cannot be sustained by this Court. The next important question to be determined is whether the Tribunal while fixing the wage structure for the workmen acted within the ambit of the reference or acted without jurisdiction, Under sec. 10 of the Act. the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is very limited and it can adjudicate only those disputes which have been referred to it by the Government under the provisions of the said section. It has no right to travel beyond the reference made to it by the Government and proceed to adjudicate matters not referred to it. In construing the terms of refer-ence and in determining the scope and nature of the points referred to it, the Court must look at the order of reference itself. It is only the subject-matter of the reference with which an Industrial Tribunal can deal. I have already reproduced the order of reference in the earlier part of this judgment and it speaks mainly of one dispute, viz, the fixation of the minimum wages at Rs. 100/- per month which may further be increased by adding Rs. 20/- by way of dearness allowance I have to see whether this dispute covers the fixation of the wage structure for the workmen. In this connection, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on The Calcutta Electric Supply Corp. Ltd. vs. The Calcutta Electric Supply Workers' Union (1 ). In that case, various disputes were raised by the union and one of the disputes referred to the Tribunal related to the "medical aid" which was item No 20 in the order of reference. The union demanded that the term "medical aid" does not only cover medical aid to the employees but also to their family members. The matter went upto the Supreme Court. Their Lordships, while scrutinising this plea of the workmen whether the term "medical aid" can be interpreted as medical aid to the workman and his family, held that the term "medical aid" in the context could not be interpreted as medical aid to the family members of the workman. In another Supreme Court case between Bhowra Colliery and Its Work-men (2), certain workmen who were Malis and working on the bungalows of the employer demanded that the bonus scheme should be applied to them and under that scheme the bonus must be given to them also. The matter that was referred to the Tribunal was whether the garden mazdoor/malis referred to above are employed on domestic and personal work within the meaning of para 3 (b) of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme, 1948, and if not, to what relief are they entitled and from what date. The Tribunal, while dealing with this demand of the Malis came to the conclusion that the Malis were entitled to the bonus not under the Bonus Scheme of 1948 but under the agreement which had been entered into between the employer and the employees on 14th January, 1955 and, therefore, independently of the Bonus Scheme, the Malis were entitled to get the bonus. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while rejecting this part of the award made by the Tribunal, observed as follows: "we think that the appellants' contention is well founded. What had been referred was the question 'whether the withdrawal of the benefit of bonus provided in the Goal Mines Bonus Scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . is justified?' On the language of the order of reference, it seems to us that the dispute referred was as to the right as provided in the bonus scheme and not as to any other right. This also was the workmen's case before the tribunal as appears from its written statement filed there. In the statement of case filed in this appeal also, the respondent took the same position. We, therefore, think that if the tribunal had held that the Malis were entitled to the bonus under the agreement of 14 January 1955, independently of the bonus scheme, it had exceeded its jurisdiction and its award cannot be upheld. " In another case of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Gupta in Airlines Hotel (Private) Ltd , Bombay vs. Its Workmen (3), the question of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal came up for the consideration of the learned Judges. In that case, the matter referred to the Tribunal related to the fixation of the wage scale but the Tribunal granted by its award an ad-hoc increase in the wages. The question that came before the Supreme Court was whether it was within the jurisdicjation of the Tribunal to allow an ad-hoc increase in the wages when the question referred was of the fixation of wage scale. Their Lordships observed: "while we think undesirable to lay it down as an inviolable rule that if the dispute referred is on the question of wage scale ad-hoc increases could never be given, there can be no doubt that ordinarily that should be so. On the facts of the present case there are no circumstances which would justify a departure from this ordinary rule. Demands which raised the dispute being for a wage scale and that being the dispute referred in terms the Tribunal could either grant the wage scale demanded in part or in whole or refuse the demand altogether. It was not justified in giving ad-hoc increases in the manner as has been done here. " This is a reverse case in which the wage scale was demanded but the Tribunal gave ad-hoc increases. This ad-hoc increase allowed by the Tribunal was not considered a justified action of the Tribunal and it was, therefore, struck down. ;