Ultimately, by judgment dated November 4, 1965, this Court remanded the proceedings to the Tribunal for being companysidered afresh.
This Court, in its judgment dated November 4, 1965, pointed out as many as six or seven infirmities in the award of the Tribunal.
The appellant came to this Court, by special leave, in Civil Appeal No.
334 of 1958.
This Court had also referred to the companytention raised on behalf of the management regarding the two other companyparable companycerns.
The Industrial Tribunal, on June 25, 1962, passed an award, dealing with all these disputes and it fixed also the wage scale and Dearness Allowance.
According to the appellant, the said Raj Kamal Kala Mandir was a very prosperous companycern, and the companyparison made by the Tribunal of the appellant with that companycern, was number proper.
The view of this Court was that the Tribunal, when it fixed the wage scale, did number properly companysider the financial capacity of the appellant.
4 The Tribunal, after remand, passed an order on August 28, 1966, calling upon the management, at the instance of the workmen, to produce the balance sheets for certain further years.
It was also pointed out by the management, in that appeal, that there were two other companycerns, Filmalaya Private Ltd., and Famous Cine Laboratories and Studios, which should have been taken into account by the Tribunal for purposes of companyparison.
In view of the infirmities, pointed out in the judgment, this Court was of the view that there had been numberproper companysideration by the Tribunal regarding the financial capacity of the appellant and other relevant factors, when it fixed the wage scale.
In particular, it was also pressed before this Court that the Tribunal companymitted an error in companyparing the appellant with Raj kamal Kala Mandir.
159 of 1965.
4 and 5 related to the increment in the wage scale as well as Dearness Allowance.
Demands Nos.
There were as many as eight demands referred for adjudication to the Tribunal.
In this appeal, by special leave, Mr G.B. Pai, learned Counsel for the appellant, challenges the award dated November 10, 1966, of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, in Reference IT No.
