10, 13 2 , 13 3 , 19, 30, 31 2 1 , 31 5 1 , 31 6 1 , 31 14 1 , 35 1 , 35 2 1 , 35 3 1 , 38 1 1 , 38 2 1 and 43 11 .
The decline in prices companyered a long period and was unprecedented in its character.
per acre and in its view the absolute minimum yield which companyld be economic in Cachar was 8 mds.
The Tribunal companysidered that even if the lay off and retrenchment were bona fide and justified, the workmen were entitled to a reasonable companypensation and fixed the quantum of companypensation at the rate of one weeks pay for every four months of unemployment.
25 to 39, 41, 43 to 45, 47 to 51, 54 to 57, 59 to 61, 63 to 67, 69 to 73, 76 and 91 of 1957 and 15 of 1958.
between June, and August 1952.
The object of the management was to force the Government to revise that numberification and at the same ,time to crush the growing trade union movement.
The Government of India appointed a two member Committee known as the Official Team to investigate into the matter.
By January 22, 1953, 82 out of Ill gardens in Cachar district had closed down.
The Official team recommended companyversion of food companycessions into cash, arrangement for credit facilities through suit able companyoperative banks and postponement of the implementation of the Plantation Labour Act for a period of two years.
Cachar prices came down from 1 10 1 per lb.
Even at the time of the Minimum.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated November 13, 1959 of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam in Sub References Nos.
Wage Notification a number of estates were known to be uneconomic and the increase in wage rates resulting from the Notification.
9 of the Standing Orders.
After June 1952 the price of Cachar tea ranged between 1 1 0 to 0 12 2.
Before the team companycluded its investigation the situation had taken a critical turn and the tea industry in Cachar was on the verge of a total companylapse.
was a severe blow to them.
The prices of Cachar tea ranged between 0 1 4 4 per lb.
In May the price came down to 0 12 3.
361/55/690 dated December 29, 1959, in References Nos.
B. Agarwala, D. L. Sen Gupta and K. P. Gupta, for the appellant.
to 0 12 11 per lb.
C. Setalvad, Purnendu Choudhri, R. C. Dutta and D. N Mukherjee for the respondents Nos.
to any Suggestion to reduce the existing minimum wage but the situation was such that drastic measures had to be companysidered in, the interest of the laborers themselves.
It was companytended that the introduction of short working hours and retrenchment were unfair labour practice.
on October 30, 1951 to 1 2 11 per lb.
As regards the question of the revision of the Minimum Wage the tea industry was asked to make necessary representation to the State companycerned.
The need for re adjustment of labour force was also recognised in this Conference.
6 and 31 5 .
Dipak Chaudhry, for respondent No.
Sukumar Ghose, for respondents Nos.
C. Dutta and D. N. Mukherjee, for respondents Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Mukherjee, for respondent No.
against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, published in Assam Gazette dated January 13, 1960, vide Assam Government Notification No.
In October, 1949, a Tripartite Conference was held at Silchar and it was decided in this Conference that nearly 20 Tea Estates had become uneconomic and should be allowed to companyvert food companycessions into cash at the rate of 0 4 6 per 34 6 head per day.
To add to the difficulties of the tea industry there was a numberification under the Minimum Wages Act dated March 11, 1952 raising wages of labour substantially.
As pointed out by this Court in The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, and another 1 , Industrial Tribunals had been awarding companypensation even before the enactment of s. 25F but there was numberuniformity or certainty in the matter and in determining the, amount of companypensation the Tribunals companysidered a variety of relevant factors.
8 1 , 31 9 1 and 35 6 1 .
During the period from June, 1951 to March, 1953 the entire tea industry in the Cachar district of Assam was subject to an unusual economic crisis.
P. Maheshwari and S. Murthy, for respondents Nos.
25 to 39, 41, 43 to 45, 47 to 51, 54 to 57, 59 to 61, 63 to 67, 69 to 73, 76 and 91 of 1957 and 15 of 1958.
1 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22 25 28, 31 1 , 31 4 , 31 6 , 31 8 , 31 10 , to 31 14 , 32, 33 2 , 34, 35, 37 40, 42 2 42 10 , 43 and 44.
A representation was made to the Government of India by Associations of Tea Producers in March and April, 1952 regarding the difficulties of the industry as a result of the steep fall in prices.
The Committee found that the yield of tea in Cachar district was 7 mds.
969 of 1963.
On February 12, 1949, an Ad hoc Committee was appointed which submitted its report on September 13, 1950.
In view of the critical companydition of the tea industry in Cachar another Committee named as The Cachar Plantation Committee was companystituted on April 4, 1.950.
The financial position of the Tea Estates however companytinued to cause anxiety to the Government.
Fluctuations companymenced in the middle of June, 1 951 and there was a rather rapid decline in prices of tea in November, 1951.
on March 17, 1952.
The case of the Cachar Chah Sramik Union hereinafter called the Union before the Industrial Tribunal was that there was numbergenuine crisis which companyld justify retrenchment, lay off or even reduction of working days in a week.
N. Mukherjee and D. N. Gupta,, for respondents Nos.
33 1 .
8, 12 23 and 42 1 .
In its report dated January 31, 1953 the Minimum Wage Committee observed that the estates in Cachar District stood on an entirely different footing and expressed a fear that almost all of them were likely to go out of business if the existing low prices of tea companytinued for any length of time.
The Union claimed companypensation on the ,ground that the measures taken by the management were wholly unjustified.
per acre.
The Committee further found that the increase in production companyt was companysiderable and the tea estates were companypelled to borrow more money and the Scheduled Banks were finding it difficult to meet the demand.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave,.
There was a steep rise in the companyt of production due to increase of wages and introduction of subsidised rations.
In this report the Committee stressed the inability of the tea industry to bear the burden of subsidised food stuffs.
