IN-Abs/train-data/summary/2557.txt

Over 9,000 employees of the Respondent Board, represented by seven Unions, demanded an increase in the dearness allowance payable to them, the payment of gratuity to some employees, and the calculation of pension payable to other employees after adding 50% of the dearness allowance.
Six of the Unions representing the employees amicably settled the disputes with the Board which granted increases in dearness allowance on the other demands being given up.
The seventh Union declined to accept the settlement and the dispute was eventually referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal took up the reference, all except 466 of the employees individually accepted the settlement.
At the hearing of the reference it was contended by the remaining employees through the seventh Union that the total wage packet including the dearness allowance claimed by them would only satisfy the requirement of a minimum wage and the Board 's capacity to pay the increases demanded was, therefore, irrelevant; furthermore, although the Board was an industry in the public sector, it must also be made to pay wages on the same basis as private sector employers; two electric supply companies in ",the area were paving wages which were much higher and there was no justification for refusing the demand for additional dearness allowance which would place the employees of the Board on par with the ,employees of those companies.
The Tribunal in its award rejected all the workmen 's demands.
It found that the demand for increased dearness allowance was not confined to achieving a minimum wage but as a result of its acceptance the wages would be above the minimum wage.
The Tribunal also found that the Board having inherited an accumulated deficit of over Rs. 2 crores from its predecessor, the Bombay State Electricity Board, having sustained heavy losses in its working and having undertaken a further liability to pay increased dearness allowance, it had no capacity to undertake the further burden of paying about Rs. 49 lakhs per year as increased dearness allowance or to meet the other demands.
The Tribunal held that the position in the other two electric supply companies was not comparable 'with the Board.
In appeal to this Court against the award it was contended inter alia, that the Tribunal was wrong in judging the capacity of the Board after taking into account the deficit of Rs. 2 crores which it had inherited from its predecessor; and that the financial capacity of the Board should 174 175 have been judged only on the basis of its commercial undertaking excluding the activities of the Board which were in the nature of national duties.
HELD : The Tribunal had rightly rejected the demands of the appellants.
(i) As the appellants had failed to show that they would not be receiving the minimum wage with their basic pay and the increased dearness allowance offered by the Board, the financial capacity of the Board for acceding to the demands made became a relevant consideration.
Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. vs The Workmen & Others, ; and The Hindustan Times Ltd. vs Their Workmen, [1964] 1 S.C.R. 234 referred to.
Although the deficit inherited by the Board from its predecessor could not be treated as a revenue loss for determining the Board 's financial capacity and was in the nature of a capital loss, even this loss could not be completely ignored.
Apart from this, it was clear 'On the facts that during three years after its formation the Board had incurred heavy losses of about Rs. 110 lakhs and it did not, therefore, have the capacity of bearing the additional financial burden involved in meeting the appellants ' demands.
[179 D F; 180 E] (ii) When the Board was constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act No. 54 of 1948 and was, by its constitution, charged with the general duty of promoting the coordinated development of the generation, supply and distribution of electricity within the State, its capacity to bear the burden of paying wages to its employees had to be worked out after taking into account all the activities which the statute required it to carry on.
The running of power houses was only one of the branches of those activities.
The profit that the Board earned could only be worked out after including in the accounts all the expenditure incurred by it on all its development and other schemes for distribution of electricity to consumers in urban and rural areas.
[181 B D] While an industry in the public sector was not exempt from application of principles which apply to an industry in the private sector and the respondent board must also be made to pay wages on the same basis as private sector employers the additional burden in either sector for paying anything above a minimum wage can only be justifiably imposed in industrial adjudication if the employer bad the capacity to meet that burden.
[181 E F] The Tribunal had rightly held that neither of the other two electric companies were comparable with the Board.
These two companies merely carried on the activity of direct supply of electricity to consumers in the towns and cities whereas the functions of the Board included the development and execution of schemes for supply of electricity to new areas.
Williamsons (India) Private Ltd. vs Its Workmen , referred to.