Das Gupta, J.— Six matters in dispute between the respondent, Hindusthan Motors Ltd., and workmen were referred to the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The first five were: (1) grades and scales of pay; (2) dearness allowance; (3) production bonus; (4) contract labour and (5) casual leave. The sixth was in respect of the termination of services of some workmen. The Tribunal by its award decided that the workmen were not entitled to any relief as regards the 3rd, 4th, 5th and the 6th of these matteRs On the question of grades and scales of pay the Tribunal laid down several slabs of annual increments for the time rated workmen but refused to make any change in the rates of piece rated workmen. On the question of dearness allowance it fixed the same rates as fixed by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal Award for the engineering concerns covered by its award but did not make any provision for any changes on account of changes in the cost of living index. The Tribunal refused to modify the production bonus scheme which was already in operation in the concern and also to extend the scheme to the plant engineering, master mechanic and inspection and supply and stores departments for which claim was made by the workmen. The workmen's claim for abolition of contract labour in some departments and their demand for 10 days' casual leave were also rejected. The workmen applied for special leave to appeal against the Tribunal's award on all these six matteRs Special leave was however granted only in respect of the first five matteRs At the hearing the appeal was not pressed in respect of two matters viz. the contract labour and the casual leave. It would be necessary, therefore, to examine the award only in respect of the first three matters, viz. (1) grades and scales of pay; (2) dearness allowance and (3) production bonus.
2. The arguments before us regarding the grades and scales of pay have centred round the question whether the Tribunal was justified in not applying to the time rated workers the grades and scales of pay awarded by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal. It has to be noticed that the respondent company was originally made a party to the order of reference to the Third Major Engineering Tribunal; but it got its name deleted from that reference by moving the High Court on the ground that the provisions made by another Industrial Tribunal and its workers were at that time subsisting. At the hearing of the present reference the workmen appear to have contended that even though the respondent is also an engineering concern it should, in view of its exceptional prosperity pay wages at a higher rate than was fixed by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal for workmen in other engineering concerns. The present Tribunal agreed that the respondent is an engineering concern and addressed itself to the question whether the grades and scales introduced by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal could reasonably be applied to this concern. It accepted however the respondent's plea that in view of the numerous categories at the workmen of this concern no division in groups according to the skill was possible and so grades and scales of pay provided in the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal had to be modified. In making the modification it fixed the slabs and rates thus:
“1. The mazdoors and helpers will have an annual increment of 4 naya paise per day for two years after they have completed one year of service on the rate of Rs 1.34 fixed by the award provided that they have improved in efficiency in respect of both nature and quality of the work.
2. Between the daily wage rates of Rs 154 and Rs 1.75 there will be a slab of 5 years with annual increments at the rate of 4 naya paise per day for 4 years and at the rate of 5 naya paise per day for the 5th year.
3-5. Between the daily wage rates of Rs 1.75 and Rs 2 and between Rs 2 and Rs 2.25 and again between Rs 2.25 and Rs 2.50 there will be three slabs of 6 years each with annual increments at the rate of 4 naya paise per day for 5 years and at the rate of 5 naya paise per day for the 6th year.
6-10. The next daily wage rate is Rs 2.75 and between this wage rate and Rs 3 between Rs 3 and Rs 3.25, between Rs 3.25 and Rs 3.50, between Rs 3.50 and Rs 3.75 and between Rs 3.75 and Rs 4 there will be 5 slabs of 4 years each with annual increments at the rate of 6 naya paise per day for 3 years and at the rate of 7 naya paise per day for the 4th year.
11-14. Between the daily wage rates of Rs 4 to Rs 4.25, between Rs 4.25 and Rs 4.50, between Rs 4.50 and Rs 4.75 and between Rs 4.75 and Rs 5 there will be 4 slabs of 3 years each with annual increments at the rate of 8 naya paise per day for 2 years and at the rate of 9 naya paise per day for the 3rd year.”
3. The appellant's contention before us is that the grades and scales of pay provided in the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal can and should be applied to this concern also. On turning to that award we find that there also an argument was advanced on behalf of the engineering concerns that classification of workmen with reference to skill could not be conveniently made without the aid of technical expert bodies and that the Tribunal should not embark upon the task of dividing the workmen in different groups. The Third Engineering Tribunal appreciated the force of the contention made on behalf of the companies about the difficulty of scientific classification of workers but decided in our opinion, rightly — that that would be no reason to avoid the task altogether and adopted a classification of the workmen into four groups, A, B, C and D and fixed the pay scales and grades of these groups thus:
“Group D: (Corresponding to the unskilled category in previous awards) — (1) Rs 35 for workers who do heavy manual work such as transport of things from one place to another and other such jobs.
(2) Rs 35-1-25 np./2-37.50 for workmen who improve in efficiency of working both in respect of nature and quality of his work. After he reaches the top of the grade the management will consider whether he is eligible for promotion to the next higher group.
Group C: (Corresponding to the semi-skilled category). Rs 40-65. It contains five slabs of Rs 5 each. Each slab comprises a period of four years, and the yearly increment is Rs 1.25 np. It covers a total period of 20 years The above principle when put into application will stand thus:
Rs 40-1.25-45
Rs 45-1.25-50
Rs 50-1.25-55
Total period is 20 years
Rs 55-1.25-60
Rs 60-1.25-65
Group B: (Corresponding to the skilled category). Rs 75-115. It contains five slabs of Rs 8 each. Each slab comprises a period of four years The yearly increments is Rs 2. It covers a total period of 20 years This principle when put into application will stand thus:
Rs
75-2-83
Rs
83-2-91
Rs
91-2-99
Total period is 20 years
Rs
99-2-107
Rs
107-2-115
Group A: (Corresponding to the highly skilled category). Rs 110-155. This scale contains five slabs of Rs 9 each. Each slab has a duration of 3 yeaRs The yearly increment is Rs 3. It covers a total period of 15 yeaRs The principle enunciated above when put into application will stand thus:
Rs 110-3-119
Rs 119-3-128
Rs 128-3-137
Total period is 15 years
Rs 137-3-146
Rs 146-3-155
4. That Tribunal was conscious of the difficulties that might be experienced in fitting the workers who were spread over numerous categories with varying degrees of skill into these groups and provided the solution in these words:
“Regarding the putting of the workmen into these grades, their present pay will be the guiding factor. Where the present pay is less than the minimum of a grade or a slab in a grade, that should be pulled up to the next higher pay point. Where the present pay is just below a particular slab in a particular group, that should be pulled up to the next higher point of pay, and then increments will follow.”
5. This award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal was made on 27-6-1959 and it is not said that any difficulty has been experienced by the concerns covered by the award in working the scheme given in the award. We cannot see therefore why the respondent concern should have any difficulty in applying this very scheme.
6. On behalf of the respondents it is argued that in fact the grades and scales awarded by the present Tribunal are more favourable to the workmen. It might be that for some workmen who are very highly skilled the present scheme may result in better earnings. By and large however the grades and scales of pay introduced by the present award is much less favourable to the workmen. For such different treatment for the workmen of this particular engineering concern while workmen of large number of engineering concerns covered by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal award all working in the same region — in the neighbourhood of Calcutta and Howrah — we cannot find any justification. There can be no dispute that it is 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. It may not always be possible to attain this object because of the different financial capacities of different concerns. Where however no such obstacle is present, industrial adjudication always tries to secure the same wage rates for the different concerns in the same industry in the same region. On the one hand this tends to the maintenance of industrial peace in the entire region and on the other it puts the different companies of the industry on more or less equal footing in their production struggle. The financial condition of the respondent company is quite satisfactory and nothing has been said before us to justify even remotely a conclusion that this company — as compared to numerous other companies — large and small — which were covered by the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal — is unable to pay what those other concerns have to pay to their workmen. But, then, says learned advocate for the respondents, the classification of workmen in the groups as provided in the Third Major Engineering Tribunal's award would itself cause discontent among its workmen. Learned Counsel argues that there may be a turner who is earning Rs 3 per day; and another turner who is earning Rs 5 per day. One who is earning Rs 5 would go into Group A of the scheme while the one who is drawing Rs 3 will go into Group B. The workman who goes into Group B will claim that as he is also a turner and as much a skilled workman as the other turner, he should also be put into Group A. If this is not done there will be discontent. Similar difficulty, it is suggested, will arise in the other categories of workmen. We do not think there is much scope for any such controversies as apprehended by the learned Counsel. Just as at present the turner having greater skill and experience receives pay at a higher rate and that does not create any discontent in another turner who because of his comparatively lower skill and experience gets Rs 3 per day; so also it is reasonable to think that the turner who is put in Group B in view of his present scale of pay will not grumble the placing of another turner with a higher rate of pay in the next group. It may be that in individual cases some friction may result in the working of this grouping scheme. It is reasonable to think however that when all the workmen together want this grouping as in their best interests the risk to industrial peace by this grouping will be very little.
7. We are not satisfied that the respondent concern will have any difficulty in applying the wage scheme as provided by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal and think it reasonable that this should be made applicable to the respondent concern also.
8. On the question of dearness allowance the appellants' grievance is that while accepting the rate for dearness allowance fixed by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal the present Tribunal omitted to provide a sliding scale for such allowance. The direction of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal on this point was that the dearness allowance will be liable to be increased or decreased on the basis of Re 1 for every five points in case of rise and fall of the cost of living index (From 364); the position will be reviewed at the end of each financial year. The whole purpose of dearness allowance being to neutralise a portion of the increase in the cost of living, it should ordinarily be on a sliding scale and provide for an increase on rise in the cost of living and a decrease on a fall in the cost of living. No reason has been given in the present award why this ordinary practice has not been followed. We think therefore that in the matter of dearness allowance also the award of the Third Major Engineering Tribunal should be applied to these workmen not only as regards the rates but also as regards the sliding scales.
9. On the question of production bonus the appellants wanted to contend that there is no reason for not applying this scheme for giving production bonus to the workmen in the Plant Engineering, Master Mechanic and Inspection and Supply and Stores Department. Mr Chari, however, concedes that no materials were placed before the Tribunal to enable it to devise any scheme for production bonus. It does not even appear that any demand was made in the written statement for production bonus being extended to departments where it was not in force. As no case for extension of the incentive scheme to other departments was made at all in the written statement it is not possible to give the appellants any relief in this matter.
10. The appeal is therefore allowed in part. The award is modified as indicated above viz. that the grades and scales of pay as provided by the Third Major Engineering Tribunal in para 14 of its award including other directions given therein be applied to these workmen in place of the grades and scales mentioned in the present award and that a sliding scale be attached to the dearness allowance awarded by the Tribunal on the lines that it will be liable to be increased or decreased on the basis of Re 1 for every five points in case of rise and fall in the cost of living index from point 364. Parties will bear their own costs in this appeal.