December 12.
This decision was challenged by the respondents before the District Judge who was the appellate authority under the Act.
42 4 0 which was due to each one of them.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, G. P. Vyas and N. Shroff, for the appellant Vithalbhai Patel, S. S. Shukla, C. T. Daru and E. Udayarathnam, for the respondent No.
It is against this decision that the appellant has preferred the present appeal by special leave.
The appellant urged that the applications were number maintainable under the Act, that they were barred in view of an arbitration award which was then in operation and that on the merits the applicants were number doing the work of cut looking.
The appellate authority also was asked to companysider the question of jurisdiction.
It examined the duties performed by the applicants, and it came to the companyclusion that both the applicants were folders doing cut looking, and companysequently they were entitled each to Rs.
5 of the agreement and were entitled to increment provided by the said clause.
The appellant Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd., is a textile mill working at Ahmedabad.
On July 11, 1955, the present respondents moved the authority under s. 16 of the Act.
Three of its employees named Punamchand, Shamaldas and Vishnuprasad made an application to the authority under s. 16 of the Act and prayed for an order against the appellant to pay them their delayed wages.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 24, 1958, of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
In order to appreciate the companytentions raised by the appellant disputing the validity of the respondents claim it is necessary to set out the background of the dispute in some detail.
In the result it was held that the respondents were governed by the Standardisation Award and did number fall under the subsequent agreement.
42 4 0.
This decision was announced on September 2, 1954.
They urged that they were semi clerks and occupied a position lower than that of a full fledged clerk and higher than that of an operative, and as such they were governed by cl.
This claim was resisted by the appellant on several grounds.
The same finding was recorded against the two other respondents.
42 4 0 per month in other words, the authority came to the companyclusion that the applicants properly, fell under the category specified in paragraph 16 of the award referred to above and as such they were entitled to recover the difference between Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
All these companytentions were rejected by the authority.
18 of 1947.
36 9 0.
It appears that an award called the Standardisation Award which companyered the mill industry in Ahmedabad was pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal on April 21, 1948, in Industrial Reference No.
On the other hand the mill owners companytended that the rate should have been fixed at Rs.
Amongst the operatives whose wages were determined by the award the case of hand folders was specifically argued before the Industrial Tribunal.
36 9 0 per month which was paid to each one of them and Rs.
36 9 0 awarded to them was too low and it was pointed out on their behalf that they did the same work as cut lookers did in Bombay where a head cut looker was given Rs.
This award fixed the wages for different categories of workers working in the textile mills at Ahmedabad, but left over the question of clerks for future decision.
874 of 1958.
It appears that at the trial before the authority the parties filed a joint Pursis which enumerated the duties performed by the respondents in paragraphs 2 to The authority took the view that the duties performed by them cannot be said to be the duties of persons doing the routine work of writing, companyying and making calculations.
This claim was resisted by the appellant.
The Labour Association urged that the rate of Rs.
243 of 1959.
52 and a cut looker Rs.
