IN THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crown Aluminium Works
(Appellants)
v.

Their Workmen
(Respondent)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

(BHUPENDRA SINGH CHELAK)
ROLL NO : 44 SECTION – B SEMESTER : V

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR
Date Of submission: 25/10/18
 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations 3

Index of Authorities 4

Statutes

Books Referred

Dictionary Referred

Websites

List of Cases

Statement of Facts 5

Issues Raised 6

Summary of Arguments 7

Written Submissions 8

Prayer for Relief 10

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

ANR. Another

Hon’ble Honorable

Ors. Others

v. Versus

www. world wide web

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Ltd. Limited

STC Sales Tax Cases

Art. Article

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

 The Constitution of India, 1950.

 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
 Contract Labour (regulation and abolition) Act, 1970

BOOKS REFERRED

 S.N. Mishra, Labour & Industrial Laws, Central Law Publications, Ed. 27 (2015).
 O.P. Malhotra, Law of Industrial Disputes, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Vol.1,
Ed. 6 (2010).
 Taxmann, Labour Laws Bare Act.

DICTIONARY REFERRED

 BRYAN AND GARNER, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, (6th Edn. Sweet & Maxwell)

WEBSITES

 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.com
 www.westlawindia.com

LIST OF CASES

S, No. Cases Citation

1. The workmen represented by Secretary Vs. The 1992 AIR 504

Management of Reptakos Brett. & Co. Ltd. and Anr

2. Hydro (engineers) Pvt Ltd v. Workmen AIR 1969 SC 182.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant M/s.
Crown Aluminium Works, Belur, represented by Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., and its Workmen
represented by Bengal Aluminium Workers' Union.

2. By the order dated July 31, 1952, the Government of West Bengal referred thirteen
matters for adjudication to Shri S. K. Niyogi who was appointed to constitute the Sixth
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. The learned adjudicator considered the pleas raised, and the evidence led, by the parties
before him, investigated into the financial position of the appellant and pronounced his
award on October 9, 1953, on all matters referred to him.

4. Both parties were aggrieved by the award and that led to two cross appeals.

5. On July 11, 1955, the Labour Appellate Tribunal disposed of these appeals by a
consolidated order. The workmen appear to be satisfied with this order but the appellant
is not and so the present appeal.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE WAGE STRUCTURE FIXED IN A GIVEN INDUSTRY CAN

BE REVISED TO THE PREJUDICE OF ITS WORKMEN?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE WAGE STRUCTURE FIXED IN A GIVEN INDUSTRY CAN’T BE

REVISED TO THE PREJUDICE OF ITS WORKMEN IN THE PRESENT CASE.

Even theoretically no wage structure can or should be revised to the prejudice of workmen if the
structure in question falls in the category of the bare subsistence or the minimum wage. The
wage structure rates must ensure not only the mere physical need of the worker which would
keep him just above starvation but must ensure for him not only his subsistence and that of his
family but also preserve his efficiency as a workman.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

1. THE WAGE STRUCTURE FIXED IN A GIVEN INDUSTRY CAN’T BE

REVISED TO THE PREJUDICE OF ITS WORKMEN IN THE PRESENT CASE.

In dealing with this question, it is essential to bear in mind the main objectives which industrial
adjudication in a modern democratic welfare state inevitably keeps in view in fixing wage
structures. It is well known " observes Sir Frank Tillyard, " that English Common Law still
regards the wage bargain as a contract between an individual employer and an individual worker,
and that the general policy of the law has been and is to leave to the two contracting parties a
general liberty of bargaining, so long as there are no terms against public policy ". In India as
well as in England and other democratic welfare states great inroad has been made on this view
of the Common Law by labour welfare legislation such as the Minimum Wages Act and the
Industrial Disputes Act. With the emergence of the concept of a welfare state, collective
bargaining between trade unions and capital has come into its own and has received statutory
recognition; the state is no longer content to play the part of a passive onlooker in an industrial
dispute.

The old principle of the absolute freedom of contract and the doctrine of laissez faire have
yielded place to new principles of social welfare and common good. Labour naturally looks upon
the constitution of wage structures as affording "a bulwark against the dangers of a depression,
safeguard against unfair methods of competition between employers and a guarantee of wages
necessary for the minimum requirements of employees " There can be no doubt that in fixing
wage structures in different industries, industrial adjudication attempts, gradually and by stages
though it may be, to attain the principal objective of a welfare state, to secure "to all citizens
justice, social and economic".

To the attainment of this ideal the Indian Constitution has given a place of pride and that is the
basis of the new guiding principles of social welfare and common good to which we have just
referred. Though social and economic justice is the ultimate ideal of industrial adjudication, its
immediate objective in an industrial dispute as to the wage structure is to settle the dispute by
constituting such a wage structure as would do justice to the interests of both labour and capital,
would establish harmony between them and lead to their genuine and wholehearted co-operation

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 8

 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

in the task of production. It is obvious that co-operation between capital and labour would lead to
more production and that naturally helps national economy and progress.

It was held in The workmen represented by Secretary Vs. The Management of Reptakos
Brett. & Co. Ltd. and Anr.1 that An employer who cannot pay minimum wage has no right to
engage labour and run the industry. A worker’s wage is no longer a contract between an
employer and an employee. It has the force of collective bargaining under the labour laws. Each
category of the wage structure has to be tested at the anvil of social justice which is the live-fibre
of our society today.

It is quite likely that in under- developed countries, where unemployment prevails on a very
large scale, unorganised labour may be available on starvation wages; but the employment of
labour on starvation wages cannot be encouraged or favored in a modern democratic welfare
state. If an employer cannot maintain his enterprise without cutting down the wages of his
employees below even a bare subsistence or minimum wage, he would have no right to conduct
his enterprise on such terms.

It was held in Hydro (engineers) Pvt Ltd v. Workmen2 the wage structure rates must ensure
not only the mere physical need of the worker which would keep him just above starvation but
must ensure for him not only his subsistence and that of his family but also preserve his
efficiency as a workman.

Even theoretically no wage structure can or should be revised to the prejudice of workmen if the
structure in question falls in the category of the bare subsistence or the minimum wage.

Substantial reduction in the wage structure is likely to lead to discontent among workmen and
may result in disharmony between the employer and his employees; and that would never be for
the benefit of the industry as a whole.

Further, the tribunal has also found that substantial retrenchment which has been sanctioned by
both the tribunals would improve the financial position of the appellant.

1
1992 AIR 504.
2
AIR 1969 SC 182.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 9

 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the lights of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, authorities cited
the Respondent humbly requests the Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that :-

1. The wage structure fixed in a given industry can’t be revised to the prejudice of
its workmen.
2. To dismiss this appeal made by Appeallants.

And to pass any order or decree in the favor of the petitioner as the Court may deem fit in the
lights of Justice, Equity & Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Place: Atal Nagar COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETIONER

Date: 25/10/2018 Bhupendra Singh Chelak

Section - B, Semester - V

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 10