JUDGMENT : Sarkar, J. 1. The appellant is a manufacturer of chemicals including soda ash. For the purpose of its manufacture the appellant requires common salt. It produces the salt so required in a salt work run by it at a place called Kuda in which a large number of persons is employed. In or about 1951, certain disputes arose between the appellant and the persons employed by it in its salt work. On 5-11-1951, the Government of the former State of Saurashtra where Kuda was situated, referred these disputes under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. This appeal arises out of the award made by the Tribunal on that reference. 2. It will be useful at this stage briefly to describe the process of the manufacture of salt which is as follows: certain wells twenty to thirty feet deep and nine feet in diameter are dug in a land which the appellant has taken on lease and on which the salt work is situated. Brine collects in the wells by percolation, the land being salty, and is drawn out and stored in a sump. From the sump the brine is taken by a channel into another reservoir called the condenser. Here the brine is kept for sometime to increase its density in salt. The brine is then taken from the condenser by another channel to the salt pan. Here the brine gradually evaporates and salt is formed. The crust of salt so formed is then repeatedly broken and raked so that the desired size of crystals may be obtained. When the salt crystals are finally formed, they are collected and piled into heaps and when they are dry they are taken to the railway siding of the works and then loaded into wagons and carried away. 3. The work of producing salt goes on from the month of October till the 15th of June approximately every year, the salt producing season thus being for eight months and a half. The commencement and the end of the season depend on the monsoon, the season starting generally after the monsoon is over. 4. Practically the entire work in the manufacture of salt mentioned above is done by the men employed there. They have been doing the work year after year and have become quite proficient. The commencement and the end of the season depend on the monsoon, the season starting generally after the monsoon is over. 4. Practically the entire work in the manufacture of salt mentioned above is done by the men employed there. They have been doing the work year after year and have become quite proficient. The Tribunal found that the work of these requires very little supervision by the appellant. The appellant only employs some testers for testing the density of the brine and a few men for general supervision and weighment and despatch of the salt produced. 5. The work is situated on a bare piece of salty land some distance away from any locality. The workmen come every year from distant villages at the commencement of the season and construct little huts near the work where they live with their families. They go away after the season is over. 6. Usually one salt pan is allotted to two persons and each salt pan has its own condenser and one or more wells attached to it. Each pan therefore forms an independent salt producing unit. There are a number of such units in the work. The two allottees of a pan require additional labour to do the work on the unit alloted to them. They supply all the implements necessary for the work, such implements being tackles for lifting the brine from the wells, shovels etc. necessary for preparing the channels and the condensers and the beds of the condensers and pans. They also supply two bullocks by which with the help of pulleys, brine is drawn from the wells. There are other implements required for doing the work which it is not necessary to mention in detail. The expenses for the additional labour, the implements and the bullocks are all met by the allottees themselves out of the remuneration paid to them by the appellant. Apart from acquiring the lease of the land, arranging for the railway siding and paying the testers and the other staff employed, the appellant does not have to invest any money for the purposes of the salt work. 7. Apart from acquiring the lease of the land, arranging for the railway siding and paying the testers and the other staff employed, the appellant does not have to invest any money for the purposes of the salt work. 7. It has been usual to pay the allottees a lump sum in the beginning of the season and also to pay them at a certain rate per maund of the salt produced by them as the remuneration for the work done by them in producing the salt for the appellant. These would be their wages if they are considered to be workmen. It appears that the allottees have no regular hours of work. The brine collected in the wells soon becomes exhausted as it is drawn out and therefore they have to wait for some time to allow the wells to fill up again. A lot of time is also spent in digging the wells or renovating them and preparing the channels, reservoirs and the beds before the manufacturing process can commence. They have further to live in the midst of a salty desert some distance away from human habitation. 8. When the hearing of the reference was first started in 1952, a preliminary objection was taken by the appellant that the persons working in the salt work were not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was not therefore competent. The Tribunal decided this question against the appellant. That question was thereafter carried to the High Court of Saurashtra by the appellant by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition and an appeal to this Court by the appellant from the decision of the High Court was also dismissed on 23-11-1956. It has therefore now been finally held that the persons employed in the salt work of the appellant were workmen within the meaning of the Act and the reference was quite competent. The Tribunal commenced the hearing of the merits of the reference after the judgment of this Court dated 23-11-1956 and made its final award on 10-12-1958. This appeal is against that award but the appellant challenges only 5 of the points covered by it. With the rest of the award we are not concerned. 9. We will now proceed to consider the first question raised in this appeal. This appeal is against that award but the appellant challenges only 5 of the points covered by it. With the rest of the award we are not concerned. 9. We will now proceed to consider the first question raised in this appeal. That concerns the claim made by the workmen for their wages. The wages claimed by them were Rs. 400 per season per pan and Rs. 0-7-0 per maund of salt produced in the pan in the season, to be shared by two persons to whom a pan is jointly allotted. Out of this, as already stated, they have to pay for the expenses incurred in producing the salt, namely, for the bullocks, the additional labour and the necessary implements. The wages fixed therefore must provide for these expenses and leave a sufficient and fair amount available to the workmen for their own benefit. 10. On the question of the remuneration of the workmen, that is, their wages, the Tribunal held that each two workmen to whom a pan is allotted should be paid for the seasons 1952-53 to 1956-57 at the rate of Rs. 400 per pan per season plus Re 0-5-6 per maund of salt produced in their pan. It is admitted that the lump sum payment of Bs. 400 per pan works out at Re 0-1-0 per maund on the basis of the average production of 6800 maunds of salt per pan per season. The rate therefore awarded by the Tribunal for the years 1952-53 to 1956-57 was Re 0-6-6 per maund. This would work out at Rs. 2-11-0 a day or Rs. 81-9-0 per month per workman after deducting the expenses they have to incur. These expenses will be discussed later. For the year 1957-58 the Tribunal awarded a rate of 37 n. paisas per maund plus Rs. 400 per pan per season. The same rate was fixed for the year 1958-59. The rates for the last two years were therefore fixed in the aggregate at Re 0-7-0 per maund which works out at Rs. 3-1-8 per day per workman net. For the year 1957-58 the Tribunal awarded a rate of 37 n. paisas per maund plus Rs. 400 per pan per season. The same rate was fixed for the year 1958-59. The rates for the last two years were therefore fixed in the aggregate at Re 0-7-0 per maund which works out at Rs. 3-1-8 per day per workman net. The Tribunal fixed lower rates for the earlier years because as a result of the delay in making the final award since the order of reference for the reasons earlier mentioned, a large amount had become due to the workmen as arrears of wages in respect of these years as the difference between the rate fixed by the award and the rate actually paid. The idea was to give some relief to the appellant in paying the accumulated arrears at a time. 11. The appellant contends that the rate of wages fixed by the award is too heavy. Various points have been urged in support of this contention but they all seem to us to be matters of detail and not involving any question of principle. Plainly these are not matters that can properly be urged in this Court and we therefore do not propose to deal with them at great length. We do not also think that these contentions are of any substance and we propose to show that from certain broad aspects of the matter. 12. We have earlier said that the rate awarded gives to the workmen per day per head Rs. 2-11-0 for the seasons 1952-53 to 1956-57 and Rs. 3-1-8 for the seasons 1957-58 and 1958-59. Considering the nature of the work part of which undoubtedly requires some skill, and that the work is seasonal with risk of unemployment when the season is over as also the hardship involved in living in a desert, we are of the view that the remuneration fixed is not unduly generous. One has also to remember that the work has to be carried on at odd hours during the day and the night necessitated by the brine getting exhausted and recollecting in the well. Next we find that it is not in dispute that unskilled labour that the workmen have to employ for the work is paid at the rate Rs. 2-8-0 per day per head. Therefore the rate of Rs. 2-11-0 and Rs. Next we find that it is not in dispute that unskilled labour that the workmen have to employ for the work is paid at the rate Rs. 2-8-0 per day per head. Therefore the rate of Rs. 2-11-0 and Rs. 3-1-8 for work involving skill cannot be said to be a high rate. 13. In arriving at the rate the Tribunal has given the workmen credit for Rs. 1400 a season for the expenses that have to be incurred by them in connection with the work. It was said that the Tribunal had estimated the expenses at too high a figure. We find that the appellant itself estimated the expenses at Rs. 948. The appellant had however omitted to take into account the expenses of a third man who has to be employed by the workmen for working each pan more or less continuously throughout the season and this comes to about Rs. 300 for the season. The appellant's contention is that the assistance of such a third man is not necessary. It appears however from the evidence of the Salt Inspector of the Government Salt Work at Kharaghoda which is situated in the same area, that three men would be required for working a pan. On this and the other evidence on the record which concerns the details of the work to be done, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that the services of a third man would be required for working each pan besides the services of the workmen to whom the pan is allotted. Another item which has not been included in the estimate of expenses made by the appellant is the cost of bullocks. The evidence shows that the work is so heavy that bullocks become unserviceable after two seasons. On this head the Tribunal has added Rs. 100 as cost of bullocks per season. Adding these two sums of Rs. 300 and Rs. 100 to the estimate of the appellant the total expense comes to Rs. 1348 which is not far out from the estimate of expenses of Rs. 1400 made by the Tribunal. We are therefore unable to accept the contention that the Tribunal erred in making the estimate of the expenses. Adding these two sums of Rs. 300 and Rs. 100 to the estimate of the appellant the total expense comes to Rs. 1348 which is not far out from the estimate of expenses of Rs. 1400 made by the Tribunal. We are therefore unable to accept the contention that the Tribunal erred in making the estimate of the expenses. On behalf of the appellant detailed figures of the work and the expenses to be incurred for it were placed before us on the basis of man-days work involved but in view of what we have just now said we do not think it necessary to discuss these details even if it was open to the appellant to urge them in this Court. We feel no doubt that the Tribunal has not made such an error in making an estimate of the expenses as would require a further investigation by this Court. 14. It was then said that the Tribunal did not follow the industry-cum-region basis in fixing the wages. We do not think that this contention is justified. As the Tribunal pointed out, the appellant for this purpose relied on the wages paid in certain salt works in the neighbourhood, which were of very recent origin having been started in or about 1950 whereas the appellant's salt work had been in existence for a very large number of years. Furthermore, the areas of these other salt works are very small. These salt works were therefore not comparable to the appellant's work. The Tribunal compared the wages paid in the Government Salt Work at Kharaghoda and those paid in certain cooperative societies' salt works in the neighbourhood. The rate at Kharaghoda was Re 0-7-0 per maund whereas the cooperative societies paid Re 0-8-6 per maund. It is said that the co-operative societies' works had subsidies from the Government and the Kharaghoda works did not have to pay any rent for the land used for the works or any royalty for the permits to manufacture salt. That may be so. But we do not think that the Tribunal was in error in considering the salt works of the co-operative societies and at Kharaghoda to be the comparable units in the neighbourhood. That may be so. But we do not think that the Tribunal was in error in considering the salt works of the co-operative societies and at Kharaghoda to be the comparable units in the neighbourhood. As regards the Kharaghoda works, it appears that the average production per pan is considerably higher, being 9000 maunds per pan with the result that the daily wages paid to a workman there would work out to be much higher than Rs. 3-1-8 per day. 15. Then it was said that the rate fixed was beyond the financial capacity of the appellant to pay. In our view, this contention has not at all been substantiated. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal proceeded to determine the financial capacity taking the accounts of the salt work by itself and this it had no right to do. It was said that the Tribunal should have taken the accounts of the appellant as a whole to find out its financial capacity. We have gone through the accounts of the appellant as a whole and find that they show ample capacity to pay the wage fixed by the Tribunal. From the profit and loss account prepared by the appellant it appears that its net profits were Rs. 10,36,477, Rs. 8,42,665, Rs. 3,75,018, Rs. 26,97,733, Rs. 11,96,148, and Rs. 2,71,306 respectively for the years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. It also appears that the appellant had been paying dividend at the rate of 6 per cent, 15 per cent, 15 per cent, 12 per cent, 12 per cent, 12 per cent, 9 per cent and 7= per cent on ordinary shares, respectively for the years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, and 1957-58. All these are ample proof of the prosperous financial condition of the appellant. It was said however that the dividends for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 were paid out of reserve. That seems to us to have been due to the way in which the accounts were kept. There was no loss in any of these years. Besides the appellant had huge reserves. It appears that its General Reserve Fund in 1954-55 was Rs. 15,65,000, in 1955-56 Rs. 19,40,000 and in 1956-57 Rs. 49,00,000 and its Dividend Equalisation Fund for these years was respectively Rs. 4,50,560, Rs. 1,92,560 and Rs. 10,03,428. There was no loss in any of these years. Besides the appellant had huge reserves. It appears that its General Reserve Fund in 1954-55 was Rs. 15,65,000, in 1955-56 Rs. 19,40,000 and in 1956-57 Rs. 49,00,000 and its Dividend Equalisation Fund for these years was respectively Rs. 4,50,560, Rs. 1,92,560 and Rs. 10,03,428. It had also large amounts to the credit of Depreciation Reserve, Rehabilitation Reserve, Reserve for payment of loan, Taxation Reserve and Contingencies Reserve and so on. We feel no doubt that the appellant had the capacity to pay the wage fixed by the Tribunal. The contrary has in any case not been established by the appellant. 16. Lastly, it was said that the workmen had agreed to accept much lower rates for the years 1952-53 till the date of the award and this should have been considered by the Tribunal as a fair estimate of the wages payable to them made by the workmen themselves. It appears that after the order of reference and when certain committees had been set up by the Central Government and the Saurashtra Government for enquiring into the working of the salt works, the appellant and certain other employers in the region reduced the wages payable to the workmen. Thus for the years 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 their wages were fixed respectively on the basis of Re 0-4-0, Re 0-4-6, Re 0-5-6, 39 n. paisas and 35 n. paisas per maund of salt produced in these years. The lump sum payment of Rs. 400 had been discontinued during these years. The Tribunal was unable to accept that these figures represented a fair estimate of the wages. We feel no doubt that the Tribunal was right in its view. The appellant had paid the workmen for the years 1949-50, 1950-51, and 1951-52 at the rate of Re 0-5-6 per maund in addition to Rs. 400 per pan per season. This it may be stated was the rate fixed by the Tribunal excepting for the last two years. The rate for 1952-53 was Re 0-5-0 per maund plus Rs. 400 for the season. We find no reason how the rates could have been fairly reduced in the succeeding years beginning from 1953-54 and the learned advocate for the appellant was unable to give any. It cannot be disputed that the prices of commodities had not been coming down during these years. 400 for the season. We find no reason how the rates could have been fairly reduced in the succeeding years beginning from 1953-54 and the learned advocate for the appellant was unable to give any. It cannot be disputed that the prices of commodities had not been coming down during these years. Neither has it been said that the Company's business was going down. The conclusion is obvious that the appellant had forced these lower rates on the workmen. They do not therefore represent an estimate of the fair wages to which the workmen were entitled. 17. The appellant also relied on the rate of Re 0-4-6 per maund plus Rs. 450 per pan per season fixed under the Minimum Wages Act to show that the rate fixed by the Tribunal was too high. We do not think that this rate is at all relevant. What we have to decide is what is fair wage and not what is minimum wage. 18. The result therefore is that the objections to the fixation of wage by the Tribunal must be rejected. In view however of the large number of years which have passed since the reference was made during which the appellant had been paying the workmen at the lower rate agreed with them, a large sum has become payable to the workmen on account of the difference between the rates actually paid and the rates fixed by the Tribunal in respect of these years. It has been represented to us that it would be difficult for the Company to find the entire sum all at once. In the circumstances of the case we think it right to direct that the difference between the rate fixed and the rate paid over the past years will be paid by the appellant in three equal instalments, the first instalment being payable by the end of March 1962, the second by the end of March 1963 and the third by the end of March 1964. The award of the Tribunal in respect of the wage is confirmed with this variation. 19. Next we come to the contention of the appellant concerning the estimate of the loss of the salt between the time it was produced and its weighment. The award of the Tribunal in respect of the wage is confirmed with this variation. 19. Next we come to the contention of the appellant concerning the estimate of the loss of the salt between the time it was produced and its weighment. The Tribunal indicated in its award that the appellant shall as soon as the salt is stacked in the railway siding for being loaded in the wagons weigh it so as to prevent difficulties arising from loss of it by rain or other similar causes after it had been so stacked and before it had been weighed. It provided that in case that is not done and the salt is washed away after it has been stacked in the railway siding, the loss will be calculated on the basis of estimated production and the workmen will be entitled to payment for the amount of shortfall between the estimated production and the actual weight. We do not think that any legitimate grievance can be made against this decision. The appellant can avoid the operation of the calculation by estimate by weighing the salt as soon as it is stacked. On the other hand, if there is loss of the salt produced by rain after it has been stacked, that loss would certainly not be due to any fault of the workmen. We think it is a fair solution of the problem arising from such loss to pay the workmen in the manner indicated in the award. We therefore confirm the award of the Tribunal on this point which relates to Demand 4 made by the workmen. 20. The next complaint of the appellant is against that portion of the award which deals with a deduction from the weight of the salt on account of its moisture content. It is not disputed that prior to the reference a deduction of 2½ per cent was made from the weight of the salt on this account. The award directed that no deduction shall be made provided the moisture content was not above six per cent and deduction would be made to the extent of moisture above that percentage. We are unable to uphold this part of the award. It appears that normally soon after its manufacture, salt contains about six per cent of moisture. The award directed that no deduction shall be made provided the moisture content was not above six per cent and deduction would be made to the extent of moisture above that percentage. We are unable to uphold this part of the award. It appears that normally soon after its manufacture, salt contains about six per cent of moisture. It is a fair agreement between the parties to give a deduction of 2½ per cent in respect of this moisture. That was the basis on which work had been carried on all along and we do not think that it is productive of any hardship on the workmen. We therefore direct that in weighing the salt the appellant would be entitled to a deduction of 2½ per cent of the weight on account of the moisture contained in the salt. 21. We come now to Demand 16 under which the workmen claimed that the appellant should establish a school on the salt work for the education of their children. The Tribunal directed that the appellant should either get the Government to establish a school or should itself establish the school within a period of one year. We are unable to uphold this part of the award also. We find that there are schools four or four miles and a half away from the work. It is not unfair to expect the children to attend these schools. Furthermore, it is in evidence that during the rains, the lands of the work become entirely covered by water. It would be impossible to have any permanent structure for a school on such land. Again, the schools would not be required except during the season, that is, except for about eight months in a whole year. It seems to us that not much useful purpose can be served by such schools. We also think that as the wage fixed by the Tribunal is a fair wage, it cannot be right to burden the appellant with the cost of providing a school for the children of the workmen. We therefore set aside that part of the award which directs the appellant to set up a school for the children of the workmen. 22. We now come to the last point raised in this appeal. We therefore set aside that part of the award which directs the appellant to set up a school for the children of the workmen. 22. We now come to the last point raised in this appeal. Under Demand 18, the workmen claimed that the appellant should set up a recreation home with canteen, reading room and indoor games for their use. This demand was substantially allowed by the Tribunal. We see no justification for this claim. We have earlier said that it is not possible to put up any permanent structure on the work as the land becomes submerged during the rainy season. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the wage fixed is fair, it would not be right to require the appellant to provide for the recreation of the workmen. We therefore set aside the award on Demand 18 directing the Company to set up recreation home for the workmen. 23. We have now disposed of all the points raised in this appeal and our orders have been stated in connection with the point concerned. In the result the award under appeal is confirmed subject to the modifications earlier mentioned. We think it fit to order that the appellant will pay the workmen respondents half the costs of the appeal.