Summary
Disputed wage comparators, employer finances and allowance evidence required fresh industrial adjudication. Although the High Court may examine facts in appropriate judicial-review cases, it should not have independently resolved these contested issues and substituted wage findings here. The employer’s financial-capacity evidence and the union’s overtime-related allowance claim needed proper examination. Both the High Court judgment and Tribunal award were set aside, with fresh determination directed within six months; all three appeals were disposed of.
Issues
- Whether the High Court should itself resolve disputed wage-comparison and financial-capacity questions in writ review.
- Whether allowance and overtime issues required fresh examination by the Industrial Tribunal.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review may involve factual scrutiny in appropriate cases, but contested comparability and financial-capacity issues requiring evidence warranted remand to the primary industrial forum here. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- Industrial wage revision ordinarily uses the industry-cum-region test, comparing similarly placed concerns in the region. Employer financial capacity is an important component of comparability and wage fixation and cannot be ignored. (¶¶ 13, 15)
- The High Court’s power is not categorically devoid of factual scrutiny, but ordinarily it should not reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the Tribunal. In this case, serious disputes over the proposed comparable units and the employer’s difficult finances called for evidence before the Tribunal rather than independent resolution in writ proceedings. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15)
- The impugned judgment did not properly analyse the employer’s evidence concerning finances and the basis for the various allowances. The union’s distinct contention about treatment of overtime wages in computing admissible allowances also required re-examination. (¶ 16)
- Both the High Court’s substantive judgment and the Tribunal award were set aside. The Tribunal must re-examine the parties’ cases afresh and conclude the reference within six months. The appeal against the review order and the other two appeals were disposed of without costs. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
Result
All three appeals disposed of; High Court substantive judgment and Tribunal award set aside. Fresh Tribunal adjudication directed within six months; review appeal and pending applications disposed of, without costs.