WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. versus WOOLCOMBERS WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHER

WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD.

WOOLCOMBERS WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHJ;R August 27, 1973

[P. JAGANMOHAN, REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.j

Tndustrial Dispute Act-Wlzat is bare minimum wage and fair wage-Differ~ ·e11ce-Industry-cum-regio11-forn1ula for fixing basic wages and dearness allowance what principle to be followed.

The West Bengal Government referred an industrial dispute bet\veen the appellants and their workmen to the Jndustrial 'Tribunal for a~iudication. As many as 10- points of dispute were referred. The Tribunal gave its Award on all the points referred except part of point No. 1 and point No. 7, which were decided against the \vorkmen. The workmen were categorised into 4 classes.-highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled -workmen. ·One part of point ·No. l relating to the fixation of the basic wage and dearness ailowance of the workmen y,·as decided in their favour. The basic wage etc. of the workmen and other employees was fixed in an arbitrary manner by the Tribunal.

Before the Award, all the workmen were getting Dearness Allowances at ·fiat rate of Rs. 94.10. The Award had varied the Dearness Allowance also.

The Tribunal only gave its conclusions but it did not giVe the supporting reasons. In appeal before this Court. the Appellant, complained that the ·rri-bunaJ in coming into its conclusions. did noi give any reason. The respondents, however, sought to explain away the absence or reasons in the Award _by saying that the Tribunal had fixed the bare minimum wage. So, no reasons were required to be given. Remandinz the case to the Tribunal to record fresh finding on the quantum and the basic wages and Dearness Allov.'ance by applying the region part of the Industry-cu1n-Region Formula etc.,

HELD : (1) The judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction should give their reasons in support of their conclusions because of ·the following reasons :

(a~ It is ca'lculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in ·reaching the conclusions.

(b) It is well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. In sense, the conclusions may be just, but they may not appear to be just to those who read them; and

( c) That from an appeal to this Court under Art. 136, if the lower courts do not give reasons for their conclusions, it will be of Httle assistance to this Court . to come to· correct decision. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or Y/rong. In ·many cases, this investment of time \and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the condusion5. [507CJ

(ii) The Tribunal has not fixed the bare minimum. wage of the \vorkmen ·as emphasised by the respondent. The bare minimum wage. as pointed .. out in Ka1n<11ii Metals & Allovs v. Their Workn1e11, [19671 2 L.L.J. 55 must tie paid by an employer in spite of want of financial capacity. The bare minimum '"'age is "the lowest little below which wages caanot be ailowed to sink in all humanity." In the written statement, the workers did not ask, for the bare minimum wage. "They were claiming basic fair \vage and not bare minimum wage. [508G]

(iii) Further, the re'ferring order of the West Bengal Government did not ask the Tribunal to fix the bare minimum wage and the Tribunal had admittedly ·considered the financial capacity {Jf the Appellants -while fixing the bare minimum -wage. Therefore, what the Tribunal was doing was fixing not the bare minimum -wage, but basic fair wage. [SlOB-C]

tiv) For fixing basic wages and Dearness Allowance, industrial adjudicatic sometimes leans on the industry part of the industry-cuni-region formula and o other times, on the region part of the formula. The industry part of the formula becomes relevant when the business carried on by the employers before the indus~ trial adjudication is also carri~d on by several other concerns in the region in. \Vhich the employer is working. In the present, case, the appellants being the only concern in the region. the industry part of the forrrula is not applicable. [5 IOGl

Gn·are.s Colton &: Co. and Ors. '" Their Work1n~n. [19461 S. S.C.R. 362,. referred to.

Therefore, the present case is governed by- the region part of the industry~· c11111-region formula. This formula requires that comparable concern should. nearly be similar to the line of business carried on bv the e1np!oyer before indu!~ trial adjudication. The Tribunal ha:s made endeavour to select for comparisoa. concerns merely similar to the line of business carried on by the appellant. It. had not compared the appellant with .any other concern. There is, however, oral. evidence for or against the appellants, but in the absence of any documentary e:\'idence, or records, the Tribunal Award on basic wa_ges and Dearness. Allow-ance oannot be upheld. 15118: 51301

Fre11cJ1 A1otor Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [1963] Supp, 2 S.C.R. 16 and lf'orkn1en of Babner Lorrit: & Co. v. Balnier Lorrie & Co., [1964) 5 S.C.R. 344, referred to.

The Tribunal should select comparable concerns in the region for the pur:oose of determining the basic wages and Dearness Allowance of the respondents.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2529 of 1969.

Appeal by special leave from the award dated the 26th September, 1969 of the Sixth Industrial· Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-198/68 published in the Calcutta/Gazette dated the November 6, 1969.

Sachin Chaudhury 0. P. Malhotra, D. N. Gupta and G. L. Mukhoty, ·for the appellant.

D. N. Mukherjee, and N. R. Chaudhury, for respondent No. 1.

G. L. Sanghi, Rathin Das and S. K. Ganguli, for respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DWIVEDI, J.-M/s. Woolcombers of India Limited have their factory ~t Jagatdal, 21 miles from Calcutta. They shall hereafter be addressed as Woolcombers. They are the appellants in this case. The respon· dents are their workmen employed in the factory at Jagatdal. They are repr,esenteu by two Unions : Woolcombers Workers' Union and ·•f'1lle Issac Holdens Mazdoor Union. On June 4, 1969. the West Bengal 'Government referred an industrial dispute between the Woolcombers and their workmen to the 6th Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta for ad.iudica-tion. As many as 10 points of dispute were referred. Parties filed their written statements and produced their oral and documentary evi-dence. After examining the evidence; the Tribunal gave its award on September 26, 1969. All the referred points except part of point No. 1 and·point No. 7 were decided against the workmen. Point-No. 7 related to the categorisation of workmen in the factory. They were catagorised into four classes : ( 1) highly skilled workmen, (2) skilled

"Workmen, (3) semi-skilled workmen, and ( 4) unskilled workmen. The finding on point No. 7 is not impugned in this appeal. part of point No. 1 relating to the fixation of grades and scales of pay was decided against the workmen. There is no appeal against this part of the award by the. workmen. The remaining part of point No. 1 relating to the fixation of the basic wage and dearness allowa_nce was deciaea

in favour of the workmen. The basic wage of the workmen was fixed in the lollowing manner :

(1) highly skilled workmen

. . Rs. 32/- per week

Rs. 23/-Per week

(2) skilled workmen

(3) semi-skilled workmen

. . Rs. 25/-per week

. . Rs. 22 ·50 P per week.

(4) unskilled workmen

'Theiy were filso given an increment of Rs. 10 /- over the basic wage. 'The basic wage of other employees was fixed in_ the following manner :

(I) Clerk Grade I ..

Rs. 150-5-170-8-250

(2) Clerk Grade ll

. . Rs1 130-3-200

(3) S. B. Clerk

Rs.· 200-10-300

(4) S. A. Clerk

. . Rs. 270-10-370

(5) Driver . .

. . Rs. 120-5-140

(6) Darwan

. . Rs. 90/-

. . Rs. 86/-. . Rs.130-I0-170-12-?.06-15-251-18-305

(7) Sweeper

(8) Junior L1boratory Assistant..

(9) Senior Liboratory Assistant . .

. . Rs. 180-15-240-20-300-25-400

(10) Overlooker . . Rs. 180-15-290-20-410

Bdore the award, all the workers were getting de~ness allowance at the fiate rate of Rs. 94.10 p. The award has vaned the dearness allowance in the following manner :

( 1) Employees getting Rs. 100 or below per month-dearness allowance at Rs. 150/- per month.

(2) Employees .getting between Rs. 100 and 200 per month-dearness allowance at Rs. 60 /- per month for the second Rs. 100/-.

(3) Employees getting between Rs. 200 and 300 per month-dearness allowance at Rs. 20 /- for the additional R>. 100/-. -

This rate of dearness allowance will remain in force so Jong as the point for the cost of Jiving fluctuates between 650 and 750. If the point goes beyond 750, per 5 points there will be an increase of Re. 1 /-. Similarly, if the point goes below 650, per 5· points there wilt be decrease of Re. 1/-.

Tl1e Tribunal has not stated the reasons in support of its conclu-·sions. This criticism of Sbri Chaudhary, counsel for the Woolcombers, appears to us to be right. As regards basic wages, the Tribunal says only this : "I am ii'clined to lay down the basic wages of the work-men ...... those who are highly skilled workmen .... will get Rs. 32/-per week as their basic wages. Those who ~re skilled workmen ...• will get Rs. 28/- per week as their basic wages. Those who are semi-

skilled workmen .... will get Rs. 25/- per week as their basic wages .. Those who are unskilled workmen will get Rs. 22.50P. per week as their basic wages." As regards the basic wages of other employees, the . Tribunal says : "Now in the light of the enhanced pay as revised by me in respect of skilled, unskilled, semi-skilled and highly skilled wor· kers, I want to revise" the existing wages of clerks, drivers, durwan, Sweeper, laboratory· assistants and overlookers. It may be observed that the first passage quoted by us states only the conclusions. It does not give the supporting reasons. The second p11$sagc quoted by us states merely one of the reasons. The other re-levant reas0115 are not disclosed. The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorWes when ex-ercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calcultated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reach-ing the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reason.• which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may b~ just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasons conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the dec'sions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Art. 136. judgment which does not disclOBe the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases this investment of time and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions. So it is necessary to emuJ!asise that judicial and quasijudi-cial authorities should always give reasons in. support of their conclusions.

Shri Sanghi, counsel for the Woolcombers Workers' Union, seeks to explain away the absence of reasons in the award by the argument that the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage. We are unable to accept this argument. Even the fixation of the bare minimum wage is the result.of n process of reaso'ling. There must be supporting rea-sons for the quantification of the bare minimum wal!e. But, as already stated .. the Tribunal has not given any reasons at all in supoort of the basic wages fixed for the factory workmen. More importantly, the Tri-bunal does not appear to have fixed the bare minimum wage. There are several dec;sinns of this Court on the mcanin~ of the bare minimum wage. We shall refer only to one of them : Kamani Metals and Alloys vs. Their Workmen. (1~) Hidayatullah J. there said :

"To cone with these differences certain principles on which . wages arc fixed have been stated from time to time by this

Court. Broadly speaking, the first principle is that there is minimum wage which, in any event must be paid, irrespec-tive of the ext·~nt of profits, the financial condition of the es· tablishment or the availability of workmen on lower wages. This minimum wag_e is independent of the kind of industry and applks to all alike big or small. It sets the lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity. The second principle is that wages must be fair, that _is to say, sufficiently high to provide standard family with food, shelter, clothing, medical care and education of children appropriate to the workmen but not at rate exceeding his wage earning capacity in the class of establishment to which he belongs. A. fair wage is thus related to the earning caµacity and the workload. It must~ however, be realised that "fair wage" is not ~'living wage" 1iy which is meant wage which is sufficient to provide not only the essentials above mentioned but fair measure of frugal comfort with an ability to provide for old age and evil days. Fair wage lies between the minimum wage, which must be paid in any event, and the living wage, which is the goal." ·

The referring order of the West Bengal Government does not ask the Tribunal to fix the bare minimum wage as explained in the afore-said decision: nor do the pleadings of the two Unions set out clear and unambiguous plea for the bare minimum wage. Paragraph 6 of the written statement filed by the Issac Holdens Mazdoor Union states .that "the conditions of service for the workmen have been kept miser-ably low on the lines of the jute workers." Paragraph 8 says that the basic wages of workmen of all categories "are low." This, in our opinion, is not clear and unequivocal plea for the bare minimum .wage. Paragraphs 6 and 8 make ,a statement of the factual position regarding the· condition of service including the basic wages in the factory at the time of the reference of th" dispute to the Tribunal. It is no where stated in the aforesaid written statement that the workers were claiming bare minimum wage. Paragraph 1 l of the written statement seems to suggest to th~ contrary. It is said in this paragraph that the claims made in the written statement "are .iust and reasonable and the Company has capacity to meet these claims." The question whether the claim for particular basic wage is just and reasonable or whether the employer has the capacity to pay the claimed basic wage i> wholly irrelevant to the demand of the bare minimum wage. The bare minimum wage, as pointed out in the Kamani Metals and Alloys vs. Their Workmen. (supra) must be paid by an employer in spite of want of financial capa-city. The bare minimum wage is the "lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in. all humanitiy." Paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by the Woolcombers Workmen Union· states that the wages "paid to the workers are not only below the level of fair wages but far bdow the need-hased minimum even as recommended by the Fifteenth Indian Labour Conference." Paragraph 8 of the written statement reiterates that the "existing wages in the factory are much below the need-based minimum." These two paragraphs do not go·

beyond stating the factual position in res~t of wages in th~ factory. They do not say that the bare minimum wage is not being prud nor d() they demand it. Paragraph 7 of the wiirten statement states that the "workers have been assured under the Constitlition of India that uvmg wages would be made available to them. The concept of living wage is dynamic and not static. It varies from time to time and country to country. Today the need-based minimum wage for the lowest paid group of the workmen cannot be less than Rs. 240/- per month per b.ead. It was in 1961 that tho floor level of fair wage for the working class had been asS<cssed approximately at about Rs. 280/- and that of the clerical staff at Rs. 380/- per month. The living wages womd be much higher still. Since 1961 th~ cost of living index has gone very high and as such the amount of ueed-b:ised minimum wage is greater still than what it was in 1961." The Union goes on to add : "The fact r~mains that the company is fairly old one and it has sufficient resources tu make available to its workmen at least fair wages with grades and incremental scale of pay on the basis of skill. It is high time that some progress should be made towards poymcnt of living wages to the workmen by introducing grades and sc:tL", of pay with annual incre-ments." This would show that the Woolcombers Workers' Union was claiming basic fair wage and not the bJrc minimum wage. Nowhere in this written statement there is clear demand for the bare minimum wage. On the whole the two written statemonts, in our view, seek to claim basic fair wage. The statement of N. H. Khan, P.W. I "that the v:ages are very inadequate for their subsi~t<ince" again i<; charac· terisation of the rates of wages in the fact'Jry at the time of the refer· ence. Those words cannot spell out demand for bare minimum wage. Expatiating on the workmen's demand for the bc1sic wages cla;mcd in their statement, N. H. Khan later said that "wl1c;i we sav !"at our demand for wages is need-based, I mean that my cl1'ldren will have adequate food and proper clothing and expenses for education. T mean bv that we want minimum \vages.'~ Our attention \¥JS also dr;iv;n by Mr. Sanghi to the statement of G. Ghorai to tl1is effrct : ·'J have 7 de, pendents. One of them is of school going age. I cannot send her to sc'1ool. I have two children, elder is the daughter. She is tJ years. My brother who is 15 is unemployed. He cannot be sent to school nor my daughter because of paucity of money. We_ seven live in one room flat at rent of Rs. 15/- per month. My expenses only for mar-keting for daily needs e.g. vegetables, salt. onion, ginger come to Rs 40/- per month. I do not buy any milk. My exPenses for fuel and kerosene oil come to Rs. 16{- per month. T cannot make both e:1ds meet bv mv monthly pay. I am in constant debt." This statement is again factual. It is perhaps vivid description of the workers' plight at the time of the reference of the disnute to the Tribunal. Tt docs r1ot, however. state that the basic wage claimed in the written statement is the bare minimum wage. It is true that N. H. Khan has said th•t we want minimum wage." but he has clarified what he meant ·hv "mini-mum wage." According to him. minimum wa~e must include exnenses for the education of the workers' children. But basic w1ae which II provides f,..,r the education of the workers' children is not the bare mini-mmn w1ae, it is fair wage. (See Kamani Metals and Alwys T.td. vs. Their Workmen (supra) at page 58). 7-L 182 Sup. CI/74

In fixing the basic wages, the Tribunal states: "In increasing basic wage as I am proposing to d~ I am quite alive to the fact that the said wage rate cannot be in any way frur wage let alone living wage but keeping in view the financial position of the company as it is now as also the nature of work they do along with their respec-tive skill, I am increasing the wage-structure at the rates prescribed by me."

According to Shri Sanghi, this passage clearly indicates that the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage. We have already pointed out that the referring order of the West Bengal Government did not ask the Tribunal to fix the bare minimum . wage. It is also necessary to point out at this stage that apart from the aforesaid passage in the award there is no reference at any other place there-in ttat the bare minimum wage was being granted to the workmen. The financial capacity of an employer does not enter into the scale in the fixation of the bare minimum wage. But in fixing the basic wages the Tribunal has ac!mittedly considered the financial capacity of the Woolcombers. It would suggest that the Tribunal has really fixed the basic frur wage. So when the Tribunal says in the afore-said passage that the basic wages fixed by it "cannot be in any way fair wage" it does not really mean to say that it was fixing the bare minimum wage. It seems to us that the Tribunal really wanted to emphasise the fact that having regard to the financial capacity of the Woolcombers it was not awarding more than the floor level of tho fair wage to the workmen. So we do not agree with Shri Sanghi that the Tribunal has fixed the bare minimum wage. Now, the absence of reasons in support of the conclusions is indeed serious flaw in the award· However, the award cannot be set aside simply on that soore, if there is evidence on the record in support of the Tribunal's conclusion. Accozdingly we have gone through the entire evidence 0~1 rec<.'fd,

It is now well-settled that basic wage and dearness allowance should be determined in the light of the industry-cum-region formula and the financial condition of an employer. So the evidence will have to be examined in the light of these two principles. Industry-cum-region formula : For fixing basic wages and dearness allowance industrial adjudi-cation sometimes leans on the industry part of the industry-cum· region formula and at other times on the region part of that formula. The industry part of the formula becomes relevant when the business carried on by the employer before industrial adjujdication is also carried on by severai other concerns in the region in which the em-ployer is working. (See Greeves Cotton and Co. and others v. Their Workmen(!) The industry part of the formula is not applicable in this case because admittedly the Woolcombers is the only concern in the region carryin~ on the business of woolcombing. Besides wool-cornbing, Woolcombers comb also Rayon, Nylon, Terelene, Terine,

Industry-cum-region formula :

Visocose, Tery-cotton and Posmina. This case is accordingly governed by the region part of the industry-cum-region formula. (See Greaves Cotton and Co. and others v. Their Workmen (Supra).

The region part of the industry-cum-region formula requires that comparable concerns should nearly be similar to the line of business carried on by tht employer before industrial adjudication· (Sec French Motor Car Co. Ltd. v. Workmen(!). The argument of the Woolcombers before the Tribunal was and still is that there are large number of jute mills in the vicinity of their factory and that che line of business carried on by them is similar to the line of 1Jusi-ness carried on in the woolcombers factory. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal has pointed out that it is true that some· jobs in the Woolcombers and jute mills are similar. Never-theless it has taken the view that the Woolcombers cannot be com-pared with the jute mills. It has elaborately pointed out the material differences in the jobs in the Woolcombers and jute mills. The workmen of Woolcombers hand!~ finer and costlier articles. The working operations in the Woolcombers are more strenuous and perilous. The raw materials require more skilful, handling and more attention and the products are to be handled much more carefully than the products of jute mill. .Wool has got many more varieties Limn jute. The shortest length of jute is 3 feet, while that of wool is two inches. The Tribunal has concluded:" (F)rom the entire evidence it is clear from start to finish in case of Woolcombers' work it is not only more exacting in spite of its apparent similarity but also call for more skill·"

I has been urged by Shri Chaudhary that the differences pointed

out by the Tribunal in the performance of jobs in the Woolcombers and jute mills are not borne out by the evidence on record and that they are not material for the purpose of deciding whether jute mills are comparable concerns. It has come in the evidence of workmen that many of them work in conditions of "intense heat": and this is admitted also by the Wookombers witness, B. B. Roy. One of the workmen's witness has stated that often workers faint on account of working in intense heat. Again, tl•[0 ]n••d•:nce of tho workmen also shows that many of them work in high powered light which causes very great strain on their eyes. B. B. Roy has also admitted that some of the workers work in very difficult conditions of dust. In short, the evidence shows that the work in the Woolcombers requires much more caution, precision and attentiol!. than the work in the jute mills. Naturally, the workers are .put to much more mental and physical strain than the workers in the jute mills.

B. B. Roy, Woolcombers' witr.ess, has compared the .iob of certain workmen in the Woolcombers with the job of workmen in .fl the jute mills. For instance, according to him Soap makers' job in the Woolcombers is similar to Emulsion Tank Attendant of Anglo

(l) [1963] Supp. 2 S. C.R. 16 at page 22.

Indi~ Jute Mills. Soap makers' job, according to him, i.s to make soap solution in tauK, whue Emwsion Tank Attelltlants' job iS to mal(e emulsion of soap, oil and water· He has made similar com-pamons between ot!lcr jobs. ~ensory sinlllanties ill jobs may be tal..en illto consideration ill findillg out comparable concerns in the region, but in our judgment they should not be regarded as decisive. Industrial adjudication should also give due weight to the w.de1y disparate sk.ll and mental and physical strain in the performance of jobs. Greater skill, like greater merit, should ordinarily receive more material recognition. Greater mental and physical strain calls for more expenditure on the workers renewal of himself and should accordingly be better rewarded. No workman will be willing tq entcrta.n an arduous and perilous task for inadequate remun.enltlon. Inadequate remuncrotion will not conduce to industrial peace. Con-sidering all the circumstances of the case, we think that the Tribunal has not gone wrong m its conclusion that the Woolcombers cannot be compared with jute mills.

Shri Chaudhary's main grievance is that the Tribunal has made no endeavour to select for comparison concerns nearly similar to the line of business carried on by the Woolcombers. We are satisfied that it is just grievance. The Tribunal has given no reasons in support of its conclusion regarding the fixation of the basic wages and dearness allowance. Nor has it compared the Woolcombers with auy other concern. The workmen no doubt produced some oral evidence in respect of certain concerns. In his evidence Nabi Hasan Khan has songht to compare the Wooloombers with the Hindustan Lever Ltd., Exide Associated Battery, National Insulated Cable Co., Titaghar Paper Mill No. 2, Calcutta Electric Supply, Shyamnagar Works and Incheck Tyre. Those concerns are situated near the Woolombers' factory. The workmen also examined P.D· Raj Bhar from Hindus-tan Lever Ltd., Amrit Lal Karmakar from Titaghar Paper Mill No. 2 and Binoy Kumar Ganguli from Rolling and Steel Ropes Ltd. to show that the basic wages and dearness allowance payable to the workers of those concerns were much higher than the basic wages and dearness allowance paid to the workmen of the Woolccmbers. It docs not seem that the Tribunal has relied on the workmen"s oral evidence. It has merely commented that presumably this evidence had been led for the purpose of "impressing upon me that the b~sic wages and dearness allowance of those concerns .... are much higher than those enjoyed by the employees of the Woo!combers·"

Indeed the Tribunal could not rely im this oral evidence. The workmen did not, specify in their written statement the names of the comparable concerns in the region. Accordingly tho Woolcombers could not have reasonable opportunity of effective confrontation of the workmen's witnesses. More im-portantly. it should be remembered that "in dealing with the com-par~ble character of an industrial undertaking; the industrial adjudi-cat10n does not usually rely on oral evidence alone. This question

is considered in the light of material evidence and circumstances which are generally proved by documentary evdience. What is the total capital invested by the concern, what is the extent of its business, what is the order of the profits made by' the concern, what are the dividends paid, how ma11y employees are employed by the concern, what is its standing in the industry to which it belongs, these and other matters have to be examined by industrial adjudication in determining the question· as to whether one concern is comparable with another in the matter of fixing wages. Now, it is obvious that these questions cannot be decided merely on the interested testimony either of the workmen, or of the employer and his witnesses." (See Wor(cmen of Balmer Lawrie and Co. v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. ([1]) The absence of any documentary evidence is fatal defect in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we cannot uphold the Tribunal's award on basic wages and dearness allowanc~.

The question now is : What course should we adopt? We can set aside the award and direct the Tribunal to make fresh award after allowing t'ie parties to produce evidence in relation to compar-able concen;1s ill' the region. The other course is to call for finding from the Tribunal in regard to basic wages and dearness allowance in the light of our judgment. The adoption of the first course may unduly delay the final award, for it is not improbable that an appeal may be filed in this COurt against the fresh a\vard. The reference was made some time in June, 1968 and five years have already gone by without the award becoming final. The adoption of the second course, on the other hand, is likely to avoid undue delay. It appears to us that having regard to the circumstances cf this case, we should adopt the second course. We would defer our decision on the ques-tion of financial capacity of the industry to bear the burden of the increased basic wages and dearness allowance till the finding of the Tribunal is received by this COurt.

While selecting comparable concerns in the region for the pur-pose of determining basic wages and dearness allowance of the workmen of the W oolcombers, the Tribunal should bear in mind that the selected concerns are as nearly similar to the Jin~ of bl!Siness carried on by the Woolcombers as possible. The selected concerns should not be disproportionately larger than the W oolcombers. The concerns should as far as possible be compared with the Woolcombers

(!) [1964] S S. C.R. 344 at page 353.

[ 19_74] 1 s.c.R.

as to their standing, extent of their labour force, extent of their custo-mers, their profit and losses and an other relevant considerations.

We direct the Tribunal to record fresh finding on the quantum of the basic wages and dearness allowance by applying the region part of the industry-i:um·region formula and in the light of our judgment. Parties are allowed to adduce their evidence on this limited question only, The Tribunal should send its finding to this Court within four months from the receipt of the record from this Court. Costs will abide the event.