* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 576 : 2024 INSC 293
The VVF Ltd. Employees Union
v.
M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2744-2745 of 2023)
09 April 2024
[Aniruddha Bose* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The two appeals arise out of a judgment delivered by a Single
Judge of the High Court of Bombay on 25.07.2019 directing, inter
alia, wage revisions pertaining to the workmen of employer-VVF
Ltd. working in two units at Sewree and Sion. Whether the High
Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in appreciating facts
and in that process substituted the finding of the Tribunal with its
own finding on facts.
Headnotes
Constitution of India – Writ – Scope of jurisdiction of High
Court – Wages – Revision – The demands of the Union would
appear from the charter of demand and they primarily relate
to prayers for revision in pay scale/wages/salaries along with
certain allowances such as leave facilities and gratuity – The
Tribunal, in its award passed, granted relief to the employees
– Writ petitions filed – The High Court entered into the factfinding exercise while testing legality of an award – The High
Court allowed the workmen’s writ petition by setting aside the
award of the Tribunal so far as the first four demands as per
the charter are concerned and upheld the Tribunal’s verdict
regarding Demand No. 5-11 – Correctness:
Held: Analysis of the various judgments of the Supreme Court
reflect the position of law that though the High Court ought not to
re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own finding for that of
the Tribunal, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the High
Court in its power of judicial review to altogether eschew such a
process – The High Court, in the impugned judgment, however,
re-appreciated the evidence led before the Tribunal in identifying
comparable concerns for applying the industry-cum-region test – In
particular, the employer has emphasised that the High Court ignored
the negative financial status of the company on the ground that
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 577
The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.
the losses made by it was miniscule – The financial capacity of an
employer is an important factor which could not be ignored in fixing
wage structure – In the given facts where the employer seriously
contested the use of the concerned units as comparable ones, and
highlighted its difficult financial position, the proper course would
have been to remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal rather than
entering into these factual question independently in exercise of
the writ jurisdiction – This exercise would have required leading
of evidence before the primary forum, the Industrial Tribunal in
this case. [Para 15]
Case Law Cited
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others [2003]
Supp. 2 SCR 290 : (2003) 6 SCC 675; General
Management, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project,
Orrisa and Others v. Giridhari Sahu and Others [2019]
12 SCR 293 : (2019) 10 SCC 695; M/S Unichem
Laboratories Ltd. v. Workmen [1972] 3 SCR 567 : (1972)
3 SCC 552, Shail (SMT) v. Manoj Kumar and Others
[2004] 3 SCR 649 : (2004) 4 SCC 785; IEL Supervisors’
Association and Others v. Duncans Industries Ltd. and
Another (2018) 4 SCC 505; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.
and Others v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and
Others [1980] 2 SCR 146 : (1980) 2 SCC 593; The Silk
and Art Silk Mills Association Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha
[1973] 1 SCR 277 : (1972) 2 SCC 253; Shivraj Fine
Arts Litho Works v. State Industrial Court, Nagpur & Ors.
[1978] 3 SCR 411 : (1978) 2 SCC 601; A.K. Bindal v.
Union of India & Ors. [2003] 3 SCR 928 : (2003) 5 SCC
163; Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers Association
[2004] 2 SCR 951 : (2004) 10 SCC 460 – referred to.
Workmen v. New Egerton Woollen Mills (1969) 2 LLJ
782; French Motor Car Co. Ltd. v. Workmen (1962) 2
LLJ 744 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Wages; Revision; Writ; Jurisdiction of High Court; Re-appreciation
of facts; Legality of award
578 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.2744-2745 of
2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.06.2021 and 25.07.2019 of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in RPL No. 82 of 2019 and
WP No. 1920 of 2014 respectively
With
Civil Appeal No. 2754 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Jamshed P. Cama, Sanjay Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Anil Kumar Mishra-i,
Prashant Pavaskar, Supantha Sinha, Anand Amrit Raj, Bennet D’
Costa, Ms. Jignasha Pandya, Nitin S. Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai
Bandaru,, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Aniruddha Bose, J.
The two appeals (i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.2745 and 2754 of 2023) arise
out of a judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Bombay on 25.07.2019 directing, inter alia, wage revisions
pertaining to the workmen of VVF India Limited (“the employer”)
working in two units at Sewree and Sion. Civil Appeal No.2744 of
2023 has been instituted by the employees union (“the union”) against
a judgment of the High Court delivered on 22.06.2021 dismissing the
union’s petition for review of the judgment passed on 25.07.2019.
Argument of the union in the review petition was that their submissions
relating to certain allowances were not considered in the main
judgment. The employer is the appellant in Civil Appeal No.2754 of
2023 and the union is the appellant in Civil Appeal No.2744 of 2023
as also Civil Appeal No.2745 of 2023.
2. The present proceedings have their origin in a charter of demand
raised by the union on 04.03.2008. The demand was in respect
of altogether 146 workmen, out of which 80 were engaged at the
employer’s establishment at Sewree and 66 of them employed at
Sion, both being situated within Mumbai. We find from the judgment
delivered on 24.07.2019 (which we shall henceforth refer to as the
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 579
The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.
judgment under appeal) that the original corporate entity VVF Ltd.,
underwent a demerger process and the units of the company at Sion
and Taloja went to VVF India Ltd., the resulting company, during
pendency of the reference, arising from the charter of demand.
3. The demands of the Union would appear from the charter of demand
and they primarily relate to prayers for revision in pay scale/wages/
salaries along with certain allowances such as leave facilities and
gratuity. The charter of demand for the year 2008 to 2011 were under
the following heads:-
“The Charter of Demand for the corresponding year 2008
to 2011 is as follows1. Revision in the Pay Scale / Salary: The Old Pay
Scale / Salary grade should be replaced by the New
or Revised Pay Scale to the Categories of Workmen
and Staff, which is annexed hereto as Annexure I & II.
2. Adjustment :
a) The present basic of employees/staff as in
annexure I & II should brought up to the level
of minimum of wage-scales wherever they are
below.
b) ‘Those whose present wages of basic do not
fit in any stages of their respective revised
wage-scales and fall in between two stages,
they should be stepped up to nearest highest
stages in the scales.
c) On doing so (a) & (b) above every employees/
staff should be granted additional increment
in their respective wage-scales as indicated
below :-
i) Those who have put service of up to 5
years - 1 increment
ii) Those who have put service of more than 5
years but less than 10 years - 2 increment
iii) Those who have put service of more than
10 year but less than 15 years - 3 increment
580 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
iv) Those who have put service of more than 15
years but less than 20 years - 4 increment
v) those who have put service of more than 20
years but less than 25 years – 5 increment
vi) Those who have put service of more than
25 years - 6 increment
3. Fixed Dearness Allowance (FDA): The Fixed
Dearness Allowance should be revised from Rs.
225/- per month to Rs.2225/- per month, which shall
stand reduced oil pro-rata on loss of pay.
4. Variable Dearness Allowance: Tbc Variable Dearness
Allowance should be revised and increased to
50% respective grade wise of the present Variable
Dearness Allowance.
5. House Remuneration Allowance: The House
Remuneration Allowance to be increased to 20% of
the basic wages and Dearness Allowance or to Rs
2000/- per month, whichever is higher
6. Shift Allowance: The Shift Allowances should be
increased in all categories irrespective of any shift
he worked, which is as follows–
1st Shift Allowance - Rs.20/-
2nd Shift Allowance - Rs.30/-
3rd Shift Allowance - Rs.50/-
7. Travelling Conveyance Allowance: Tite Travelling
Conveyance allowances should be given to all
Employees amounting to Rs. 1000 per month.
8. Medical Allowance: The Medical Allowance shall be
raised to Rs. 15,000 per annum to all categories of
Workmen, which falls out of the purview of ESI Act.
9. Education Allowance: An Education Allowance should
be introduced to all the Workmen whose Children
are studying in School or College. The Education
Allowance should also be provided to those Workmen
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 581
The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.
who are studying to an amount of Rs. 15,000 per
annum for their higher Studies.
10. Leave Travel Allowance: The old Leave Travel
Allowance should be revised from 1,200/- per year
to Rs.6000/- per year.
11. Leave Facilities:
a) Sick Leave to be increased from 7 days per
year to 15 days per year.
b) Casual Leave to be increased from 10 days per
year to 12 days per year.
c) Privilege Leave to be increased from 15 days
per year to 33 days per year.
d) Paternity Leave to be introduced to 7 days per
year.
12. Mediclaim Policy to the Family Members: The family
of the Employees who falls out of purview of ESI
Act shall be provided with a General Insurance
Mediclaim Policy to the family members amounting
to Rs.3 lacs only.
13. Gratuity: The Gratuity of the Employees should be
increased to 30 days per year instead of 15 days
per year.
14. Housing Loan facility: The. Employees who have
completed his 5 years of service or more should
be entitled to Housing Loan @ 5% per annum or a
rebate of @.5 % per annum on the loan availed in
any Bank or Society.
15. Personal Loan Facility: The Employees who have
completed his 2 years of service or more should
be entitled to Personal Loan @9% per annum or a
rebate of @ 5% per annum on the loan availed from
any Bank or Society.”
4. The Tribunal, in its award passed on 29.03.2014, granted relief to
the employees represented by the union under the following heads
and in the following manner:-
582 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
"i) Reference is answered partly in affirmative.
ii) The following demands raised by the Second Party
Workmen are granted as follows:-
1) Demand No. 5:- House Rent(Remuneration)
Allowance- The First Party Company is directed
to increase the HRA to 20% of the basic wages
and dearness allowance or to Rs.2000/- per
month whichever is higher.
2) Demand No.6:- Shift Allowance- The First Party
Company is directed to pay the shift allowance
to all the workers irrespective of any shift they
worked, as follows:-
1st Shift Allowance - Rs.20/-
2nd Shift Allowance - Rs.30/-
3rd Shift Allowance - Rs.50/-
This allowance will not be reckoned for provident
fund, HRA, Leave encashment, bonus, gratuity,
overtime, etc. or any other benefits.
3) Demand No. 7:- Travelling Conveyance
Allowance- This demand is allowed partly. The
First Party Company is directed to increase this
allowance from Rs. 600 to Rs.800 per month.
This allowance will not be reckoned for provident
fund, HRA, Leave encashment, bonus, gratuity,
overtime, etc. or any other benefits.
4) Demand No.8:- Medical Allowance This demand
is allowed partly. The First Party Company
is directed to pay the medical allowance
@ Rs.1000/- per month to all categories of
workmen, who fall out of the purview of the
ESI Act. This allowance will not be reckoned for
provident fund, HRA, Leave encashment, bonus,
gratuity, overtime, etc. or any other benefits.
5) Demand No. 9:- Education Allowance- This
demand is allowed partly. The First Party
Company is directed to pay the education
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 583
The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.
allowance @ Rs.1000/- per month to all the
workmen whose children are studying in school
or college or even doing higher studies. This
allowance will not be reckoned for provident
fund, HRA, Leave encashment, bonus, gratuity,
overtime, etc. or any other benefits.
6) Demand No.10:- Leave Travel AllowanceThe First Party Company is directed to grant
Leave Travel Allowances to all the employees
concerned in this Reference at par with that
given to Taloja factory workmen on the same
terms and conditions. This demand is allowed
partly. This allowance will not be reckoned
for provident fund, HRA, Leave encashment,
bonus, gratuity, overtime, etc. or any other
benefits.
7) Demand No.11:- Mediclaim Policy to the Family
Member~:-This demand is partly allowed. The
First Party Company is directed to provide to the
family of the concerned workmen who fall out of
the purview of the ESI Act with the Mediclaim
Policy amounting to Rs.1 lac only, at par with
that being given to the Taloja factory workmen
on the same terms and conditions.
iii) The following demands of the Second Party Workmen
are rejected:-
1) Demand No.1 :- Revision in the Pay Scale/
Salary.
2) Demand No.2:- Adjustment.
3) Demand No.3:- Fixed Dearness Allowance.
4) Demand No.4:-Variable Dearness Allowance.
iv) The First Party Company is directed to extend the
benefits arising out of the grant of the aforementioned
demands in clause (ii) herein to the workmen
concerned in this Reference w.e.f 13.11.2009.Arrears
of these allowances upto 31-03-2014 be paid the
584 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
workmen concerned within 60 days from the date of
publication of this award by the appropriate Authority.
v) The First Party Company is at liberty to adjust the
interim amount paid to the concerned employees
from their arrears.
vi) In the circumstances, no order as to cost.”
5. Both the employer and the union challenged the said award by
instituting separate writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay
and these writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment
by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, being the judgment
under appeal before us. The Union’s writ petition was registered
as Writ Petition No. 1920 of 2014 whereas the writ petition of the
company was registered as Writ Petition No.3152 of 2014. The High
Court allowed the workmen’s writ petition by setting aside the award
of the Tribunal so far as the first four demands as per the charter
are concerned and upheld the Tribunal’s verdict regarding Demand
No. 5-11. The particulars thereof would appear from the following
passages of the judgment: -
“25. The Petitioner union is demanding increase in basic
wages from 1 January 2010. The proposed revised pay
scale is as follows :
GRADE
USK 10 1 13 2 19 3 28 4 40 5 55
SSK 20 2 26 3 35 5 50 7 71 9 98
SK 30 3 39 5 54 7 75 10 105 14 147
HSK 1000 100 1300 150 1750 225 24258 325 3400 450 4750
l” CLASS
BOILER
ATTENDANT
1100 110 1430 165 1925 250 2675 375 3800 525 5375
WATCHMAN 500 50 650 75 875 115 1220 165 1715 250 2465
PEON 400 40 520 60 700 90 970 130 1360 180 1900
HEAD
WATCHMAN
750 75 975 125 1350 200 1950 300 2850 425 4125
DRIVER 750 75 975 125 1350 200 1950 300 2850 425 4125
JR.
SUPERVISOR
1200 120 1560 180 2100 270 2910 400 4110 550 5760
SR.
SUPERVISOR
2500 250 3250 350 4300 550 5950 825 8425 1175 11950
OFFICER
SUPERVISOR
3000 300 3900 450 5250 675 7275 1000 10275 1450 14625
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 585
The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.
The following adjustments are proposed so as to rationalize
the transition from the present basic wage structure to the
revised scale proposed as above:
A. The present basic of employees I staff as in annexure
I & II should brought up to the level of minimum of
wage scales wherever they are below.
B. Those whose present wages of basic do not fit in any
stages of their respective revised wage scales and
fall in between two stages, they should be stepped
up to earnest highest stages in the scales.
C. On doing so (a) and (b) above every employee /
staff should be granted additional increment in their
respective wage scales as indicated below:-
i) Those who have put service up to 5 years
increment
-1
ii) Those who have put service more than
5 years but less than 10 years increment
-2
iii) Those who have put service more than
10 years but less than 15 years increment
-3
(iv) Those who have put service more than
15 years but less than 20 years increment
-4
(v) Those who have put service more than
20 years but less than 25 years increment
-5
vi) Those who have put service more than 25
years increment
-6”
"29. To arrive at the proposed revision, the existing
fixed dearness allowance of Rs.225/- for daily
rated unskilled (USK), Semi skilled (SSK) and
skilled workmen (SK) as also monthly rated Highly
Skilled workmen (HSK), 1st class boiler attendants,
watchmen, head watchman, drivers, peons (i.e. all
employees other than supervisors and officers) can
be appropriately raised by Rs.1000/- per month so
as to make it Rs.1225/- per month. Fixed dearness
allowance for monthly rated junior supervisors,
supervisors and senior supervisors and officers
586 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
may not be increased. So far as variable dearness
allowance is concerned, no increase may be in order
till 2011. Increase, if any, deserves to be considered
from 2011 onwards, which demand, anyway, is the
subject matter of a separate reference (for the period
2011-2014).”
So far as the employer’s writ petition is concerned the same was
dismissed. The High Court held that there was no serious anomaly
in the demands of the union allowed by the Tribunal.
6. The union, in its writ petition, argued that the Tribunal had failed to
consider the plea of the workmen for parity with similarly situated
units in the vicinity as well as its claim for overtime allowances. The
test applied by the High Court as regards comparison with the similar
units would appear from paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment,
which reads:-
“26 In Justification, what was submitted was that this,
along with the applicable allowances (as revised), would
bring the Mumbai workmen on par with their counterparts
in the Taloja unit. To assess this submission, I called upon
both parties to submit their respective charts of Mumbai
and Taloja salaries for all classes of workers and the
impact of revision in pay scales proposed by the union.
According to the union, the revision proposed would bring
up the salaries of skilled grade workmen having 15 years
of service (taken as a representative case) to Rs.16,250/-
per month as against the salaries of Rs.16,248/- of their
Taloja counterparts (as of October 2010). (Comparative
chart of Godrej Industries, Deepak Fertilizers and Hikal
Ltd. shows their comparable salaries, as of October 2010,
of Rs.28,621/-, Rs.20,492/- and Rs.21,419/- respectively.)
The monthly and annual burdens on the Respondent
employer occasioned by the increase work out to between
Rs.6.58 lacs to Rs.14.01 lacs per month, and Rs.78.94
lacs to Rs.1.68 crores, for the particular wage fixation
period, namely, from 2008 to 2011.”
7. The employer has assailed the judgment questioning the jurisdiction
of the Writ Court in entering into fact-finding exercise while testing
legality of an award. The employer’s case argued by Mr. Cama,
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 587
The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.
learned Senior Advocate, sought to fault the approach of the High
Court mainly on this ground. He has also argued that the units
with which the High Court had made comparison to arrive at its
finding were not similarly situated, having regard to their industrial
output and financial position. He submits further that the High Court
in any event would not sit in appeal over the Tribunal’s award in
exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review, primarily applying the
scope of the writ of certiorari. He has relied on judgments of this
Court in the cases of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and
Others [(2003) 6 SCC 675], General Management, Electrical
Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orrisa and Others -vs- Giridhari
Sahu and Others [(2019) 10 SCC 695]. In the former judgment,
it has been held:-
“12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, the High
Court proceeds on an assumption that a court which has
jurisdiction over a subject-matter has the jurisdiction to
decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would
not, therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself
the role of an appellate court and step into reappreciating
or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings
in place of those arrived at by the inferior court.”
Broadly the same principle has been laid down in the case of
Giridhari Sahu (supra). Mr. Cama has also submitted that in the
event the High Court found flaw in the reasoning of the Tribunal on
factual basis, instead of undertaking the exercise of revision of pay
scale and wages as also other facilities itself in substituting its view
in place of the Tribunal’s, the High Court ought to have remanded
the matter to the Tribunal itself.
8. The union was represented by Mr. Sanjay Singhvi, learned
senior counsel. His submission is that it would be well within the
jurisdiction of the High Court to undertake some form of exercise
of appreciation of facts and on judgments he has relied on the
judgment of this Court in the cases of M/S Unichem Laboratories
Ltd. -vs- Workmen [(1972) 3 SCC 552], Workmen -vs- New
Egerton Woollen Mills [(1969) 2 LLJ 782], Shail (SMT) -vsManoj Kumar and Others [(2004) 4 SCC 785], IEL Supervisors’
Association and Others -vs- Duncans Industries Ltd. and
Another [(2018) 4 SCC 505].
588 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9. Relying on this line of authorities, and also a judgment of this Court
in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Others -vs- Gujarat
Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others [(1980) 2 SCC 593], he
has argued that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is wide enough and can decide factual
issues instead of remanding a matter. In the latter authority, it was
held, inter-alia, that in appropriate cases, the High Court’s jurisdiction
could be coordinate to that of the Tribunal.
10. On behalf of both the parties, a large body of authorities has been
relied upon but in this judgment, we shall deal with those decisions
only which we find relevant for effective adjudication of the present
appeal.
11. As we have already indicated, the main question which has been
argued by the learned counsel appearing for the employer is on the
issue as to whether the High Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction
in appreciating facts and in that process substituted the finding of
the Tribunal with its own finding on facts. To substantiate the point,
as we have already discussed, the cases of Giridhari (supra) and
Surya Dev Rai (supra) have been relied on by Mr. Cama.
12. There are authorities, to which we have referred to earlier in this
judgment that lay down the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court.
In the cases of Unichem Laboratories Ltd. (supra), Shail (SMT)
(supra), IEL Supervisors’ Assn. (supra) as also the case of Gujarat
Steel Tubes Ltd. (supra), it has been held that the High Court in
appropriate cases can go into facts while examining an award of a
Tribunal.
13. For revision of wages and other facilities, the standard criteria which
is followed by the industrial adjudicator is to apply industry-cumregion test, which in substance implies that the prevailing pay and
other allowances should be compared with equally placed or similarly
situated industrial units in the same region. To determine comparability
of units applying the industry-cum-region test, inter alia, the financial
capacity of the employer would be a strong factor. Reliance on this
point has been placed on the cases of French Motor Car Co. Ltd.
-vs- Workmen [(1962) 2 LLJ 744], The Silk and Art Silk Mills
Association Ltd. -vs- Mill Mazdoor Sabha [(1972) 2 SCC 253]
and Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works -vs- State Industrial Court,
Nagpur & Ors. [(1978) 2 SCC 601].
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 589
The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.
14. Substantial argument of Mr. Cama was on selection of comparable
units. His submission is that the High erred in identifying the matching
units and also calling for fresh charts in course of hearing of the writ
petition with respect to Taloja unit of the original employer. It is the
stand of the employer that such evidence gathering exercise ought not
to have been undertaken by the High Court. It was also pointed out
on behalf of the employer that it was making losses barring in three
financial years between 2008-09 and 2021-22. Further submission
of Mr. Cama is that the workmen of the Taloja unit were not of the
same employer after the demerger had taken place and that they
were involved in a separate set of activities when compared to the
other units in question.
15. Analysis of the authorities relied on by the learned counsel for parties
reflect the position of law on this point to be that, though the High
Court ought not to reappreciate evidence and substitute its own finding
for that of the Tribunal, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the
High Court in its power of judicial review to altogether eschew such
a process. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, however,
reappreciated the evidence led before the Tribunal in identifying
comparable concerns for applying the industry-cum-region test. In
particular, the employer has emphasised that the High Court ignored
the negative financial status of the company on the ground that the
losses made by it was miniscule. In this regard, the judgments of
this Court in the case of A.K. Bindal -vs- Union of India & Ors.
[(2003) 5 SCC 163] Mukand Ltd. -vs- Mukand Staff & Officers
Association [(2004) 10 SCC 460] have been relied upon. Both
these authorities lay down the financial capacity of an employer is an
important factor which could not be ignored in fixing wage structure.
In the given facts where the employer seriously contested the use of
the concerned units as comparable ones, and highlighted its difficult
financial position, the proper course would have been to remit the
matter to the Industrial Tribunal rather than entering into these
factual question independently in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
This exercise would have required leading of evidence before the
primary forum, the Industrial Tribunal in this case.
16. On behalf of the employer, it was also specifically argued that various
allowances like house rent, shift allowance, travelling, medical,
education and leave travel were granted without any evidence. The
employer’s witness no.2 had given his deposition in detail, particularly
590 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
on financial position of the company. From the judgment impugned,
we do not find proper analysis of the employer’s evidence in that
regard. So far as the union’s appeal is concerned, their point is
confined to treatment of overtime wages in computing allowances
admissible to them. That question also ought to be re-examined.
17. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court delivered on
25.07.2019 as also the Tribunal’s award. Let the Tribunal re-examine
the cases of the respective parties afresh. We are conscious of the
fact that these proceedings arise from a charter of demand made
in 2008. We direct the Tribunal to conclude the reference within a
period of six months. The Civil Appeal No.2744 of 2023 against the
review order dated 22.06.2021 also stands disposed of.
18. Thus, all the three appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeals disposed of.
