Skip to content


K. Shivashankarappa Vs. Workmen of Jayalakshmi Textiles and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 601 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1964Kant295; AIR1964Mys295
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act - Sections 10
AppellantK. Shivashankarappa
RespondentWorkmen of Jayalakshmi Textiles and anr.
Advocates:E.S. Venkataramiah, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....which is not the scope of 254(2) of the act. hence, impugned order was set aside. - venkataramiah complained that the award in this regard is arbitrary and does not test upon an intelligible principle or ground. now, it is a very well recognised principle that deafness allowance could be awarded in cases in which the scales of pay fall short of the living wage. the application of the mind of the labour court was therefore, necessary to the question whether the scales of pay obtaining in the industry fell short of the living wage and how far that gap between the living wage and the scale of pay could be neutralised, by the award of dearness allowance, having due regard to the advantages enjoyed by the workmen, and which the industry had the capacity to pay......that deafness allowance could be awarded in cases in which the scales of pay fall short of the living wage. the application of the mind of the labour court was therefore, necessary to the question whether the scales of pay obtaining in the industry fell short of the living wage and how far that gap between the living wage and the scale of pay could be neutralised, by the award of dearness allowance, having due regard to the advantages enjoyed by the workmen, and which the industry had the capacity to pay.far from addressing itself to these considerations which form the foundation of the award forthe payment of the dearness allowance by thelabour court, it took into consideration extraneous circumstances such as that the industry madesome profits in the year 1957 and 1958 and.....
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. The management of the industry called 'Jayalakshmi Textiles' is the petitioner before us, and the complaint made on its behalf is against one portion of award made by the. Labour Court, Bangalore, in a reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, at the instance of the workmen of the industry. Many demands were made by those workmen and an award pursuant to the reference made under Section 10, was made granting most of them. But the only part of the award which is challenged in this writ petition is the dearness allowance allowed by the Labour Court at a flat rate of Rs. 6-50 nP. for each work-man a month. Although the Labour Court in Paragraph 17 of its award did address itself to the question whether the financial stability and economic condition of the industry justified the award of any dearness allowance to the workmen, it did not proceed, to rest its decision on any finding that there was such basis for the fixation or the award of any dearness allowance, but thought that because the Industry has made some profits in the year 1957-58 and had also reduced its wage expenses by about Rs. 9,000/-, there was a case for the award of dearness allowance.

2. Mr. Venkataramiah complained that the award in this regard is arbitrary and does not test upon an intelligible principle or ground. This com-plaint is to our mind substantial. Now, it is a very well recognised principle that deafness allowance could be awarded in cases in which the scales of pay fall short of the living wage. The application of the mind of the Labour Court was therefore, necessary to the question whether the scales of pay obtaining in the industry fell short of the living wage and how far that gap between the living wage and the scale of pay could be neutralised, by the award of dearness allowance, having due regard to the advantages enjoyed by the workmen, and which the industry had the capacity to pay.

Far from addressing itself to these considerations which form the foundation of the award forthe payment of the dearness allowance by theLabour Court, it took into consideration extraneous circumstances such as that the Industry madesome profits in the year 1957 and 1958 and thatthere was diminution in the amount of wages paidby it to its workers during those years. That partof the award by which the workmen were awardeddearness allowance cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed. There will however be no Orderas to costs.

3. Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //