Greaves Cotton and Co. and Others v. Their Workmen

_1963_ _November U_ 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] GREAVES COTTON AND CO. AND OTHERS _v._ THEIR WORKMEN {P.B. GAIBNDRAOADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) _Industrial Dispute-Wage Scales-Industry-cum-region formu-_ _la--Applicability-Division_ _of unskilled workers_ _into_ _two_ _classes,_ _if_ _permissible-Dearness allowance-Incremental scales-Adjust-_ _ment._ The disputes between the appellant companies and the workmen w~dch were referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, related to wages, dearness allowance and gratuity. The companies raised objections to the award of the Tribunal on various grounds. _Held:_ _(i)_ The reference in the award to the recommendations of the Tripartite Conference wherein the need-based minimum wage was evolved, did not vitiate the award, as the final decision was based not on them but on a consideration of the wages prevalent in comparable concerns so far as clerical and subordinate staff were considered. _(ii)_ In applying the industry-cum-region formula for fixing wage scales the Tribunal should lay stress on the industry part of the formula if there were large number of concerns in the same region carrying on the same industry, but where the number of industries of the same kind in a particular region was small, it wa" the region part of the formula which assumed importance particularly in the case of clerical and subordinate staff. ##### In the present case, the Tribunal was right in leaning more on the region part of the industry-cum-region formula and less on the Industry part. _Workman_ _of Hindus;an_ _Motors_ v. _Hindustan MotorJ,_ [1962] 2. L. L. J. 352 _and French_ _Motor_ _Car_ _Company_ v. _Their Workman_ [1963] Supp. 2. S.C.R. 16 considered. _(iii)_ The Tribunal was not justified in creating two classes of higher unskilled and lower unskilled in the category of unskilled factory-workmen in the matter of fixation of wage-scales. _(iv)_ Employees getting same wages should get the same scales of dearness allowance irrespective of whether they were working as clerks, or members of subordinate staff or factory-workmen. _(v)_ In fixing the same rates of dearness allowance for factory- ., workmen as for clerical staff, it was necessary for the Tribunal when ma1fog comparisons to take into account the total wage packet and then compare it with the total wage packet of comparable _5_ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 363 concerns and thus arrive at a just figure for basic wage for each _1963_ category of factory-workmen. _(vi)_ There is nothing in law to prevent an industrial tribunal _Greaves_ _Cotton_ from granting adjustments to the employees in the revised wage _and Co._ _and_ scales even in a case where previously pay-scales "ere in existence, _Others_ but this has to be done sparingly, taking into consideration the v facts and circumstances of each case. _Their_ _Workmen_ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 272 to 280 of 1962. Appeals by special leave from the Award dated June 3, 1960, in reference (IT) Nos. 84 and 251 of 1959, June 15, 1960, in References (IT) Nos. 112 and 252 of 1959, June 16, 1960, in References (IT) Nos. 121 of 1959, and 7 of 1960, June 15, 1960, in References (IT) Nos. 123, 180 and 236 of 1959 of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra at Bombay. S. _V._ _Gupte,_ _Additional Solicitor-General_ _N._ _V._ _Phadke, J.B. Dadachanji,_ _0. C._ _Mathur_ and _Ravinder_ _Narain_ for the appellants (in all the appeals). _M.C. Setalvad, K.T. Sule, Madan_ _G._ _Phadnis,_ _Jitendra Sharma_ and _Janardan Sharma,_ for the respondents (in C.A. No. 272/1962). _K.T. Sule, Madan_ _G._ _Phadnis, Jitendra Sharma_ and _Janardan_ _Sharma,_ for the respondents (in C. As . Nos. 273-280/62). November 14, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J.-1hese nine appeals by special _Wanchoo_ _J._ leave arise out of the awards of the Industrial Tribunal Bombay and will be dealt with together. Ther~ wer~ disputes between the four appellants--compames and the respondents, their workmen which we!e referred . for adjudication to the Iddustrial Tnbunal by rune reference-orders on various dates bet:ween April. to December 1959. The main dispute which gave nse to the references was with respect to wages, . dearness allowance and gratuity. The references i_ncluded other items also but we are not concerned m the present appeals with those items Of the four companies who are the appellants betor~ 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] _1963_ us, Greaves Cotton and Co., is the first company - and its main activity is to invest money in manufactur_Greaves Cotton_ ing concerns. The second company is Greaves _and Co. and_ Cotton and Crompton Parkinson Private Limited _Othe,._ and its main business is distribution of the products v. of a manufacturing concern known as Crompton _Their Workmen_ Parkinson (Works) India Limited and service and repair to the said products at its workshop. The _Wanchoo_ _J._ third company is Konyon Greaves P1ivate Limited and its main business is to manufacture high grade interstranded ropes for the textile industry. The last company is Ruston and Hornsby (India) Private Limited and its main business is to manufacture oil engines and pumps. The last three companies are controlled by the first company, namely Greaves Cotton and Co., in one way or the other and that is how the main dispute relating to wages and deacrness al'lowance was dealt with together by the tribunal. There were two references each with respect to the first three companies and three references with re:spect to Ruston and Hornsby Private Limited; and that is how there are nine appeals before us. There were nine awards, though the main award dealing with th,e main dispute relating to wages and dearness allowance was common. It appears that wages and dearness allowance pr,evalent m the four companies had been continuing since 1950 when the last award was made between the~ parties. It may also be stated that there was no serious dispute before the Tribunal as to the financial capacity of the companies and further, as the first company controls the other three companies,, the wages and dearness allowance are the same so far as the clerical and subordinate staff are concerned. The same appears to be the case with respect to factoryworkmen. ·The Tribunal dealt with clerical and subordinate staff separately from the factory-workmen. So far as the clerical and subordinate staff are concerned, the Tribunal, after a comparison of wages and dearness allowance prevalent in the four companies with wages r # I 5S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 365 and dearness allowance prevalent in comparable con- _1963_ cerns revised them. Further it provided how the clerical and subordinate staff would be fitted in the _Greaves_ _Cotton_ new scales after making certain adjustments and in _and_ _Co._ _and_ that connection it gave one to three extra increments _Others_ depending upon length of service between 1950 to · . v. 1959. Finally, it ordered that the award would have _Their Workmen_ effect from April l, 1959, which was a week before the first reference was made with respect to the first _Wanchoo_ _J._ company. The Tribunal then dealt with the case of the factory-workmen and prescribed certain rates of wages. Further it gave the same dearness allowance to the factory-workmen as to the clerical and subordinate staff and directed adjustments also on the same basis. Finally it considered the que&tion of gratuity and the main provision in that respect was that the maximum gratuity allowable would be upto 20 months and a provision was also made to the effect that if an employee was dismissed or discharged for mi&conduct which caused financial loss to the employer, gratuity to the extent of that los$ only will not be paid to the employee concerned. The main attack of the appellants is on the award as regards wages and dearness allowance. It is urged that the industry-cum-region formula, which is the basis for fixation of wages and dearness allow ance has not been properly applied by the Tribun,tl and it had been carried away by the recommendations of the tripartite conference which suggested needbased minimum wages. It is also urged that whatever comparison was made was with concerns which were not comparable and the wages awarded were even hig~er than those prevalent in any comparable concern. It 1s also urged that the Tribunal did not consider the total effect of the increase it was granting in basic wage and dearness allowance together as it should have done, for the purpose of finding out whether the total pay packet in the appellants' concerns can bear comparison with the total pay packet of the concerns with which the 1:ribunal h~d C?~pared the appellants' concerns. In this connection 1t 1s urged that in fixing 366 SUPREME COURT ·REPORTS [1964J _1963_ scales of wages the Tribunal increased the maximum and the minimum and the annual rate of incriement _Greaves_ _Cotton_ and decreased the span of years in which the maximum _and Co._ _and_ would be reached. Adjustments made by the Tribunal _Others_ are also attacked and so is the order making the award v. - enforceable from April 1, 1959. As to the factory _Their_ _Workmen_ workmen it is urged that the Tribunal made no attempt - to make a comparison with wages prevalent even Wa~choo _J._ in what it considered to be comparable concerns. Lastly it is urged that the Tribunal created a new category of factory workmen called higher unskilled which was not demanded and which in any case did not exist in any comparable concern. The first question therefore which falls for decision ts whether the Tribunal went wrong in not following the industry-cum-region principle and in leaning on the recommendations of the Tripartite Conference. It is true that the Tribunal begins its award with a reference to the recommendations of the Tripartite Conference wherein the need-based minimum wage was evolved. It is urged that thiJ disposed the Tribunal to pitch wage-scales too high. It fa however clear from the award that though theTribunaldiscussed the recommendations of the Tripartite Conference at some length, when it actually came to make the award it did not follow those recommendat10ns. The reason why it referred to those recommendations was that the respondents-workmen based their claim on them and wanted that the Tribunal should fix wagescales accordingly. But the Tribunal's conclusion was that it was not feasible to do so, though looking at the financial stability of the appellants, emolument~ needed upgrading. It then went on to consider the wages prevalent in comparable concerns and finally fixed wages for the appellants on the basis of wages prevalent in such concerns. Though therefore the recommendations· of the Tripartite Conference are referred to in the Tribunal's award, its final decision is not based on them and what the Tribunal has done is to make comparisons with what 1t considered comparable concerns so far as clerical and subordi ### I 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 367 nate staff are concerned. We are therefore not _1963_ prepared to say that reference to the recommendations of the Tripartite Conference in the opening part of _Greaves_ _Cotton_ the award was irrelevant and therefore the rest of _and Co._ _and_ the award must be held to be vitiated on that gronnd v. alone. - _Their_ _Workmen_ _Wanchoo_ _J._ The main contention of the appellants however is that the tribunal has gone wrong in applying the indu&try-cum-region formula which is the basis for fixing wages and dearness and has made comparison with concerns which are not comparable. It is also urged that the Tribunal has relied more on the region aspect of the industry-cum-region formula and not on the industry aspect when dealing with clerical and subordinate staff and in this it went wrong. Reference in this connection is made to two decisions of this Court, namely, _Workmen_ _of Hindusthan Motors_ v. _Hindusthan_ _Motors<_ _[1]_ _)_ and _French Motor Car_ _Company_ v. _Their Workmanl_ _[2 ]_ _)_ and it is emphasised that the principles laid down in _Hindusthan Motors'_ case( [1 ] l were more applicable to the present case than the principles laid down in the _French_ _Motor Car Ca.'s_ case< [2] J. In _the Hindusthan Motors_ case(lJ, tlus Court observed that it was ordinarily desirable to have as much uniformity as possible in the wage-scales of different concerns of the same industry working in the same region, as this puts similar industries 11¥lre or less on an equal footing in their production, struggle. This Court therefore applied the wage-scales awarded by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal in Bengal in the case of Hindusthan Motors also. It is urged that the Tribunal should have taken into account comparable concerns in the same industry and provided wage-scales on the same lines so that, so far as manufacturing concerns in the present appeals are concerned, there will be equality in the matter of competition. In _the French_ _Motor Car Co.'s_ case< [2] - however this Court held so far as clerical staff and subordinate staff are concerned that it may be possible to take into account (1) [1962] 2 L.L.J. 352. (2) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) _1963_ even those concerns which are engaged in different lines of business for the work of clerical and subordi_Greaves_ _Cotton_ nate staff is more or less the same in all kinds of _and Co._ _and_ concerns. We are of opinion that there is no in _Others_ consistency as urged in the principles laid down in v. these two cases. As we have already said the b.:tsis _Their Workmen_ of fixation of wages and dearness allowance is ind us - try-cum-region. Where there are a large number of _Wanchoo_ _[1]_ _·_ industrial concerns of the same kind in the same region it would be proper to put greater emphasis on the industry part of the industry-cum-region principle as that would put all concerns on a more or less equal footing in the matter of production costs and therefore in the matter of competition in the market and this will equally apply to clerical and subordinate staff whose wages and dearness allowance also go into calculation of production costs. But where the number of comparable concerns is small in a particular region and therefore the competition aspect is not of the same importance, the reg10n part of the industry-cum-region formula assumes greater importance particularly with reference to clerical and subordinate staff and this was what was emphasised in _the French Motor Car Co.'s_ case< [1] - where that company was already paying the highest wages in the particular line of business and therefore comparison had to be made with as similar concerns as possible in different lines of business for the purpose of fixing wage-scales and dearness allowance. The principle therefore which emerges from these two decision's is that in applying the industry-cum-region formula for fixing wage scales the Tribunal should lay stress on the industry part of the formula if there are a large number of concerns in the same region carrying on the same industry; in such a case in order that production cost may not be unequal and there may be equal competition, wages should generally be fixed on the basis of the comparable industries, namely, industries of the same kind. But where the number of industries of the same kind in a particular region is small it is the region part of the industry-cum-region formula which (I) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16. .. 5S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 369 assumes importance particularly in the case of clerical _1963_ and subordinate staff, for, as pointed out in _the French_ _Motor Car Co.'s_ case,c [11 ] there is not much difference _Greaves Cotton_ in the work of this class of employees in different _and Co._ _and_ industries. In the present case> it does appear that _Others_ the Tribunal has leaned more on the region part of . v. the industry-cum-region formula and less on the _Thezr Workmen_ industry part. But we think that it cannot be ~aid _Wanchoo_ _J._ that the Tribunal was wrong in doing so for two reasons. In the first place these four companies are not engaged in the same line of industry; but on account of certain circumstances, namely, that Greaves Cotton and Co. is the controlling company of the other three, it ha& been usual to keep the same scales for clerical and subordinate staff in all these concerns. In the second place, it is not clear, as was clear in _the Hindusthan_ _Motors_ casec•> that there are a large number of comparable concerns in the same region. As a matter of fact the main company out of these four is Greaves Cotton and Co. Limited, which is in the main an investment and financial company and the Tribunal was therefore right m taking for comparison such companies as would stand comparison with the main company in the present appeals (namely, Greaves Cotton & Co). Both parties filed scales of wages prevalent in what they considerea to be comparable concerns and it is clear from the documents filed that some of the comparable concerns were the same in the documents filed by the two parties. On the whole therefore we do not think the Tribunal was wrong in putting emphasis on the region aspect of the industry-cumregion formula in the present case imofar as clerical and subordinate staff was concerned for the four companies before us do not belong _tb_ the same industry and Greaves Cotton and Co. controls the other thr~e. Considering therefore the standing of the mam ~ompany (namely, Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd.), 1t was not improper for the Tribunal in the present cases to rely on the comparable concerns {I) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16 (2) [1962] 2 L.L.J. 352. l/SCI/64---24 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] _1963_ which were cited on behalf of the respondcmts, some - of which were common with the comparable concerns _Greaves Cotton_ cited on behalf of the appellants. What the Tribunal _and Co. and_ did thereafter was to consider the minimum for various _Others_ categories of clerical and subordinate staff prevalent v. in these comparable concerns and the maximum _Their Workmen_ prevalent therein and also the annual iincrements and the span of years in which the maximum would _Wanchoo l._ be reached. Th") Tribunal then went on to fix scales for variou1 categories of clerical and subordinate staff of the appellants which were in-between the scales found in various concerns. Further, as the financi 1 capacity of the appellants was not disputed, the Tribuilal pitched these scales nearer the highest scale~ taking into account the fact that for nine years after 1950 there had been liO increase in wage scales. We do not think therefore that the wage scales fixed by the Tribunal, leaning as it did, on the region aspect of the industry-cum-region formula, for the clerical and subordinate staff can be successfully assailed by the appellants. It has however been urged that the Tribunal overlooked considering what would be the total wage packet including basic. wages and dearness allowance and that has made the total wages _(i.e._ basic wage and dearness allowance) fixed by the Tribunal much higher in the case of the appellants than in comparable concerns which it took into account. It is true that the Tribunal has not specifically ccnsidered what the total wage packet would be on the basis of the scales of wages and dearness allowance fixed by it as it should have done; but considering that wage scales fixed are less than the highest in the comparable concerns though more than the lowest, it cannot be said that the total wage packet in the case of the appellants would be necessarily higher than in the case of the other c:omparable concerns. This will be clear when we deal with the dearness allowance which has been fixed by the Tribunal, for it will appear that the dearness allowance fixed is more or les> on the same lines, _i.e._ less than #### J _L_ _J_ 5S.C.R . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 371 the highest but more than the lowest in other com_1963_ parable concerns. On this basis it cannot be said that the total wage packet fixed in these concerns would _Greaves Cotton_ be the highest in the region. Though therefore the _and Co. and_ Tribun<tl has not specifically considered this aspect _Others_ of the matter which it should have done its decision v. cannot be successfully assailed on the ground that the _Their Workmen_ total wage packet fixed is the highest in the region. 1his brings us to the case of factory-workmen. We are cf opinion that there is force in the contention of the appellants insofar as the fixation of wagescales for factory-workmen is concerned. The respondents wanted that separate wages should be fixed for each category of workmen. The Tribunal however rejected this contention and held that the usual pattern of having unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled grades should be followed and the various workmen, though they should be known by their designation and not by the class in which they were being placed, should be fitted in these categories. In the present concerns, there were six categories from before, namely (i) unskilled, (ii) semi-skilled I, (iij) semiskilled If, (iv) skilled I, (v) skilled II, and (vi) skilled III. The Tribunal kept these categorie~ though it introduced a seventh category called the higher unskilled. It is not seriously disputed that this category of higher unskilled does not exist in comparable concerns; nor have we been able to understand how the unskilled category can be sub-divided into two namely, lower and higher unskille:i, though we can understand the semi-skilled and skilled categories be!ng sub-divided, depending upon the amount of skill. But there. cannot be -degrees of want of skill among !he _uns~1lled c~ass. The Tribunal therefore wa.s no! Justified m creatmg the class of higher unskilled. It 1s !1e1ther necessary nor desirable to create a higher unskilled category and only the six categories which were prevalent from before should continue. The main a!tack of the appellants on the wages fixed for these six categories is that in doing so, the _WanchooJ._ 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) _1963_ Tribunal completely overlooked the wages prevalent - for these categories in concerns which it had consi_Greaves_ _Cotton_ dered comparable. A look at the award shows that _and Co._ _and_ it is so. The Tribunal has no where considered what _Others_ the wages for these categories in comparable concerns . v. are, though it appears that some exemplars were _Their Workmen_ filed before it; but the way in which the Tribunal has - dealt with the matter shows that it paid scant regard _Wanchoo_ _J._ to the exemplars filed before it and did not care to make the comparison for factory-workmen in the same way in which it had made comparison for clerical and subordinate staff. In these circumstances, wage-scales fixed for factory-workmen must be set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal to fix wage-scales for factory-workmen dividmg them into six categories as at present and then fixing wage after taking into account wages prevalent in comparable concerns. The parties will be at liberty '! to lead further evidence in this connection. Then we come to the question of dearness allowance. So far as clerical staff is concerned, dearness allowance prevalent in the appellants' concerns was as follows on the cost of living index of 411-420 : .. Basic salary in Rs. 1to100 101 to 200 201 to 300 301 and above D.A. at cost of living index group 411-420 115 % of basic salary or the textile scale on 30 day month whichever is higher. 35% 25% 17!% Variation for every 10 point movement. 5~ • _0_ 1!% 1 % 3/4% ' ###### ... 5S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 373 The Tribunal fixed the dearness allowance as follows:- _1963_ A comparison of these figures will show that on the first hundred and the third hundred there is no difference in the scale fixed by the Tribunal; but there is a slight improvement on the second hundred and a very slight one above three hundred. This scale fixed by the Tribunal is in line with some scales of dearne~s allowance recently fixed by Tribunals in that region. The main improvement is on the second hundred and it cannot really be said that employees in that wage range do not require the higher relief granted to them by tribunals m view of the rise in prices. We do not think therefore that the dearness allowance fixed by the Tribunal, taking into account what was already prevalent in these concerns and .also taking i11to acc:mnt the trend in that regi>.rn, can be successfully assailed so far as clerical staff is concerned. This brings us to the case of subordinate staff. It appears that in the&e concerns, subordmate staff was getting dearness allowance on different scales based on the old textile scale of dearness allowance. The Tribunal has put the subordinate staff in the same scale of dearness allowance as clerical staff. The reason given by it for doing &o is that incongrmty in the payment of dearness allowance between clerical and subordinate staff should be removed. It appears that on account of different scales of When the consuSalary slab mer price index is between 411420 _Greaves_ _Cotton_ Variation for _and Co_ _and_ er.ch 10 point rise _Othe;s_ or fall in the index. v. _Their_ _Workmen_ On 1st Rs. 100 On 2nd Rs. 100 On 3rd Rs. 100 Balance upto Rs. 600 115% 50% 25% 20% 5% 2% 1% 1% _Wanchoo_ _J._ 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] _1963_ dearness allowance for >ubordinate and clerical staff - a member of the subordinate staff drawing the same _Greaves Cotton_ wages would get less dearness allowance than a member _and Co. and_ of the clerical staff. The dis:repancy is very glaring _Others_ as between clerical staff and factory-workmen who v. also have different scales of dearness allowance. _Their Workmen_ The Tribunal therefore thought that dearnes; allowance - which is meant to neutralise the rise in cost of living, _Wanchoo_ _J._ should be paid to clerical staff, subordinate staff as well as factory workmen on the same scale, for the need for neutralisation was uniformly felt by all kinds of employees. It also pointed that there was <' '" a trend towards uniformity in the matter of scales of dearness allowance as between clerical staff and other staff and factory workmen and reforred to a number of firms where same scales prevailled for all the staff. It has however been urged on behalf of the appellants that the pattern in the region is that there are different scales of dearness allowance for clerical staff and other staff including factory workmen and the Tnbunal therefore should have followed this pattern. The reasons given by the Tribunal for giving the same scales of dearness allowance to all the categories of staff, including the factory-workmen appear to us to be sound. Time has now come when employees getting same wages should get the same ~ dearnes; allowance irrespective of whether they are working as clerks, or members of subordmate staff or factory-workmen. The piessure of high prices is the same on these various kinds of employees. Fur- _J_ ther subordinate staff and factory workinen these days are as keen to educate their children as clerical staff and in the circumstances there should be no difference in the amount of dearness allowance between employees of different kmds gettrng same wages. Further an employee whether he is of one kind or another getting the same wage hopes for the same amenities of hfo and there is no reason why he should not get them, simply because he is, for example, a factory workman, though he may be coming from the same class of people as a member of clerical _.. staff. On the whole therefore the Tribunal was in ## r 5 S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS 375 our opinion right in following the trend that has be- _1963_ gun in this region and in fixing the same scale of dear- -ness allowance for subordinate staff and factory- _Greaves Cotton_ workmen as in the case of clerical staff. So far there- _and Co._ _and_ fore as subordinate and clerical staff are concerned, _Others_ we see no reason to disagree with the rate of dearness v. allowance fixed by the Tribunal. _Their Workmen_ This brings us to the case of the dearness allowance _Wanchoo_ _J._ for factory-workmen. In their case we have set aside the award relating to wage scales. It follows that we must also set aside the award relating to dearne5s allowance as we have already indicated that the Tribunal has to take into consideration the total pay packet in fixing wages and dearness allowance. When therefore the case goes back to the Tribunal for fixing wages and dearness allowance for factory-workmen, it will be open to the Tribunal to fix the same rates of dearness allowance for factoryworkmen as for clerical staff; but in doing so the Tribunal must when making comparisons take into account the total wage packet _(i.e._ basic wages fixed by it as well as dearness allowance) and then compare it with the total wage packet of comparable concerns and thus arrive at a just figure for basic wage, for each category of factory-workmen. But the entire matter is left to the Tribunal and it may follow such method as it thinks best so long as it arrives at a fair conclusion after making the necessary comparison. This brings us to the question of adjustment. We have already said that the Tribunal allowed one to three increments depending upon the length of service .between 1950 and 1959. It has been urged ~hat no adjustment should have been allowed taking mto account the fact that incremental scales were in force previously also in these concerns and the Tribunal has increased both the minimum and the maximuip in its award '.ind has granted generous am~ual mcren;ients reducmg the tot~l span within which a p~rt1cular em_ployee belongmg to clerical and subordmate staff will reach the maximum. Reliance in this connection has been placed on _the_ 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] _1963_ _French_ _Mo(or Car Co.'s_ case <1l. It is true that the Tribunal has given larger increments thus reducing the _Greaves Cotton_ span of years for reaching the maximum. That _and Co. and_ alone however is no reason for not grantmg adjust _Others_ ment. But it is said that in _the French Motor Co._ . v. case< [1] >, this Court held that where scales of pay were _Their Workmen_ existing from before no adjustment should be granted - by giving extra increments and that that case applies _Wanchoo_ _[1]_ _·_ with full force to the facts of the present case. Now in that case this Court pointed out on a review of a large number of awards dealing with adjustments that "generally adjustments are granted when scales of wages are fixed for the first time. But there is nothing in law to prevent the industrial tribunal from grantmg adjustments to the employees in the revised wage scales even in a case where previously pay-scales were in existence; **but** this has to be done sparingly taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The usual reason for granting adjustment even where wage-scales were formerly in existence is that the increments provided in the former wage-scales were particularly low and therefore justice required that adjustment should be granted a second time." Another reason for the same was that the scales of pay were also low. Jn those circumstances adjustments have been granted by tribunals a second time. This Court then pointed out in that case that the incremental scales prevalent in that company were the highest for that· kind of indmtry and therefore struck down the adjustments granted and ordered that clerical staff should be fixed on the next higher step in the new scales if there was no step corresponding to the salary drawn by a clerk in the new scale. The question therefore whether adjustment should be granted or not is always a que&tion depending upon the facts and circum&tances of each case. Let us therefore see what the circumstances in the present cases are. Tables of comparative rates of increments were filed before the Tribunal (1) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16. 5 S.C.R . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 377 for various grades of clerks. It i~ clear from the _1963_ examination of these tables and pay-scales prevalent in the appellants' concerns from 1950 that pay scales _Greaves Cotton_ were not high as compared to pay scales in compar- _and Co. and_ able concerns. If anything, they were on the low _Others_ side. Further, as an example, in the case of junior v. clerks, the first rate of increment was Rs. 5 in the _Their Workmen_ appellants' concerns and this rate went on for 13 years; in other concerns where the first rate of in- _Wanchoo l._ crement was Rs. 5 it lasted for a much shorter period, which in no case exceeded eight years and was in many cases three or four years. In some concerns the first rate of increment was higher than Rs. 5. Almost similar was the case with senior clerks. So it appears that in the appellants' concerns the first rate of increment was generally on the low side and lasted for a longer period than in the case of comparable concerns. In these circumstances if the Tribunal decided to give increments by way of adjustments it cannot be said that the Tribunal went wrong. The facts in these cases are different from the facts in the case of _the_ _French Motor Car Co.'s_ case< [1] - and therefore (1) we see no reason for interfering with the order of adjustment. After the change in wage-scales, dearness allowance and adjustment, the employees of the appellants' concerns will stand comparison with some of the best concerns in that region. But considering that there is no question of want of financial capacity and that Greaves Cotton & Co. which is the main company concerned in these appeals, has a high standing in that region, we do not think that the total wage packet fixed is abnormal or so disproportionate as compared to the total wage packet in other comparable concerns as to call for any interference with adjustments. The next question is about the so-called retrospective effect of the award. The first reference was made. to the Tribunal on April 8, 1959, while the last was m December 1959. What the Tribunal has doi;ie is to gr:int wage-scales etc., from April I, 1959. This cannot m our opinion be said to be really (!) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16. 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] _1963_ retrospective, because it is practically from the date of the first reference in the case of the main company. _Greaves Cotton_ On the whole therefore we see no reason to interfere _and Co. and_ with the order of the Tribunal fixing the date from _Others_ which the award would· come into force . . ~ Lastly we come to the question of gratuity. _Their_ ~men The attack in this connection is on two aspects of _Wanchoo_ _J._ the gratuity scheme. The first is about the fixation of 20 months as the maximum instead of 15 months, which was usual so far. The second is with respect to deduction from gratuity only to the extent ot the financial loss occasioned by misconcluct in case of dismissal for misconduct. So far as the second provision is concerned it cannot be disputed that this is the usual provision that is being mac.e in that region. So far as the increase in the maximum _.i._ from 15 months to 20 months is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has relied on a number of cases in which the maximum is higher than fifteen months wages. In these circumstances considering that tribunals have now begun to give a higher ceiling and in one concern, namely Mackinnon Mackenzie, the ceiling has been fixeo even so high as thirty months by agreement, we do not think that any interference is called for in the present ra~e. We therefore dismiss the appeals so far as re- r trospective effe-::t a'ld adjustments as also fixation of wages and dearness allowance \\ itb respect to clerical and subordinate staff are concerned. We allow the appeal with respect to factory-workmen _1'_ and send the cases back to the Tribunal for fixing the wage structure including basic wage and dearness allowance and for granting adjustments in the light of the observations made by us. The new award pursuant to this remand will also come into force from the same date, namely, April l, 1959. The appeals with respect to gratuity are dismissed. In the circumstances we order parties to bear their own l-Osts. Two months from today is allowed to pay up the arrears. _Appeal partly allowed and_ _remanded._