Judgment :- 1. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., a Government owned company, is the petitioner. The petition seeks to quash by issue of the appropriate writ or order Ext. P1 award passed by the 1st respondent. There is a rubber estate consisting of 2000 acres known as Kalady Plantations. From May 1960 to August 1960 that estate was being managed as a unit of the Forest Department. Another estate called Kodumon Plantations was also being managed as a unit under the Agricultural Department of the Government. In August 1960, these two estates were brought under the control of the Director of Rubber Plantations. According to the petitioner the workers in the Kalady estate were paid wages on the basis of the schedule rates obtaining in the Forest Department, for employing casual labourers by the department and the rates of wages at which they were paid were higher than the prevailing rates of wages in other rubber plantations throughout the State. The workers in the Kodumon estate were being paid at the following rates: Men 110 6; Women 1-4-3; etc., whereas the rates of wages in the Kalady estate are: Men 2-00; Women 1. 50, and Head Coolies-2-50. While these two estates were brought under the control of the Director of Rubber Plantations Government passed an order on 7-9-1961, marked Ext. M-6 in Ext. P-1 proceedings, stating that in respect of the workers employed in the Kalady rubber plantations, the existing rates of wages in the Chalakudy (Kalady) Plantations will be followed as a temporary measure till 19 81961 and that the necessity for the continuance of the above rates thereafter will be determined after examination of the question. Later on the Government passed the order dated 30 91961, marked Ext. M-7 in Ext. P-1 proceedings, directing that the rates of wages prevalent in the Kodumon Plantations be paid to the workers in Kalady Plantations with effect from 20 81961, with the result that the rates of wages of the workers in the two plantations became the same. The consequence of this order was that workers in the Kalady Plantations raised an industrial dispute and the dispute was referred by agreement of parties to the 1st respondent under S.10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The consequence of this order was that workers in the Kalady Plantations raised an industrial dispute and the dispute was referred by agreement of parties to the 1st respondent under S.10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question referred for adjudication was whether the management was justified in effecting the cut in the rates of wages of the workers in the Kalady Plantations. The 1st respondent found that it could not be said that the management was justified in effecting the cut in the rates of wages prevailing in that Estate from 20-8-1961, and that the workers in that estate were entitled to get the wages at the original rates, namely, Rs. 2.CO for Men, Rs. 1.50 for Women and Rs. 2.50 for Head Coolies with effect from 20 81961. 2. The management has filed this writ petition contending that the award is vitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the record on the ground that the 1st respondent has misunderstood the scope and effect of Exts. M-6 and M-7 marked in Ext. P-1 proceedings. 3. The main argument addressed to me by counsel for the petitioner was that there was no real cut in the rates of wages, but the management has only regularised the rates of wages which had been temporarily fixed in Ext. M-6 order and that the 1st respondent went wrong in thinking that the management has brought about a cut in the rates of wages by Ext. M-7 order. Counsel submitted that in deciding the question whether the rates of wages in an industry are reasonable, the paramount consideration should be whether the prevailing rates of wages in other similar establishments or industries are more or less the same, that higher rates of wages were paid in the Kalady Plantations because they were originally managed as a unit of the Forest Department and because in the Forest Department the casual labourers were paid at these rates, that no rates of wages were fixed for the workers in the Kalady Plantations, and that in Ext. M-6 Government fixed the rates of wages not on the basis of any comparative study of the rates of wages prevailing in similar plantations in the region but as temporary measure without adverting to all implications of the question. In other words, counsel said that what was done in Ext. M-6 Government fixed the rates of wages not on the basis of any comparative study of the rates of wages prevailing in similar plantations in the region but as temporary measure without adverting to all implications of the question. In other words, counsel said that what was done in Ext. M-6 was that the rates of wages paid to casual employees of the Forest department were adopted as a temporary measure for paying the workers of the Kalady Plantations and that these rates of wages cannot be taken as the standard rates for workers of the Kalady Plantations. Counsel referred to the rulings reported in Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd.. v. Its Workmen AIR. 1960 SC. 692, Birla C. S. & W. Mills v. Its Workmen, AIR. 1961 SC. 1179, French Motor Car Co. v. The Workmen AIR. 1963 SC 1327, and Greaves Cotton & Co. v. Their Workmen AIR. 1964 SC. 689 and said that to decide the question of the fairness and reasonableness of the rates of wages it is necessary to find the rates of wages prevailing in similar industries or plantations and if the rates of wages fixed for the workers of the Kalady Plantations under Ext. M-7 campare favourably with the rates of wages adopted in similar establishments or estates in the region, then there is no ground for attacking the wage rates fixed in Ext. M-7. 4. In AIR. 1960 S. C. 692 it is observed: "Mr. Sastri contends that the method adopted by the tribunal was a scientific method; it took into account a basic wage deducible on the industry-cum-region basis and this should not. have been reversed by the appellate tribunal. It, however, appears that in ascertaining the wages which labour in comparable trades was getting in the relevant region, the tribunal has completely lost sight of the fact that in addition to the basic wages of Rs. 26, Rs. 43, was the average minimum dearness allowance paid to the workers and that made a very large difference in the total earnings of the workmen. In determining the minimum basic wage the fact that a large amount of dearness allowance was being paid to employees in other comparable occupations in the same region should not have been ignored by the tribunal, and that is one infirmity on which the appellate tribunal was entitled to comment." In AIR. In determining the minimum basic wage the fact that a large amount of dearness allowance was being paid to employees in other comparable occupations in the same region should not have been ignored by the tribunal, and that is one infirmity on which the appellate tribunal was entitled to comment." In AIR. 1963 S. C. 1327 the Court said: "The main contention on behalf of the appellant is that wages are fixed on industry-cum-region basis and the tribunal went wrong when it took into account for comparison industrial concerns which were entirely dissimilar to the appellant's. It is now well-settled that the principle of industry-cum¬region has to be applied by an industrial court, when it proceeds to consider questions like wage structure, dearness allowance and similar conditions of service. In applying that principle industrial courts have to compare wage scales prevailing in similar concerns in the region with which it is dealing, and generally speaking similar concerns, would be those in the same line of business as the concern with respect to which the dispute is under consideration " In AIR. 1964 S. C. 689 it was held: "Both parties filed scales of wages prevalent in what they considered to be comparable concerns and it is clear from the documents filed that some of the comparable concerns were the the same in the documents filed by the two parties. On the whole, therefore, we do not think the tribunal was wrong in putting emphasis on the region aspect of the industry-cum-region formula in the present case in so far as clerical and subordinate staff was concerned, for the four companies before us do not belong to the same industry and Greaves Cotton & Co., controls the other three. Considering therefore the standing of the main company (namely, Greaves Cotton & Co., Ltd.,), it was not improper for the tribunal in the present cases to rely on the comparable concerns which were cited on behalf of the respondents, some of which were common with the comparable concerns cited on behalf of the appellants." These passages would show that the important consideration for fixing the wage structure in an industry is the rates of wages prevailing in similar industries in the region. Counsel for the petitioner said that the 1st respondent went wrong in brushing aside the evidence in the case regarding the rates of wages in other similar estates in the locality for deciding the question whether the cut in the rates of wages was justified or not. 5. The 1st respondent came to the conclusion that there was no justification in effecting the cut on the ground that in Ext. M-7 no relevant reasons were given by Government for the same. The only reason given in Ext. M-7 for making the cut is that the workers in the Kodumon Plantations are being paid at a lower rate. The 1st respondent states in Ext. P-1 award that the rates of wages specified in Ext. M-6 were adopted with full knowledge of the lower rates of wages fixed for the workers in the Kodumon Estate, and therefore that can hardly afford a reason for effecting the cut by Ext. M-7 order. The reason which prevailed upon the Government for fixing a higher rate of wages in Ext. M-6 is the high demand for the labourers in Chalakudy area and the enhanced wage rates prevailing in that locality: that is stated in Exts. M-6 and M-7. It is also clear from Ext. M-6 that it was after examining the question in all its aspects that Government fixed the rates of wages in that order though, no doubt, as a temporary measure. The reasons for fixing the high rates of wages in Ext. M-6 continued on the date of Ext. M-7, as it was not shown to the 1st respondent that those reasons had ceased to exist. What then was the justification for the cut was the question which the 1st respondent asked and answered by saying that there was none. I do not think that the approach is in any way vitiated. Besides, there are practical considerations in the evaluation of this question. In Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen, AIR. 1958 S. C. 30 it is observed: "The Tribunal must also keep in mind some important practical considerations. 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. 1958 S. C. 30 it is observed: "The Tribunal must also keep in mind some important practical considerations. 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. On the other hand, in assessing the value or importance of possible discontent amongst workmen resulting from the reduction of wages, industrial tribunals will also have to take into account the fact that if any industry is burdened with a wage structure beyond its financial capacity, its very existence may be in jeopardy and that would ultimately lead to unemployment. It is thus clear that in all such cases all relevant considerations have to be carefully weighed and an attempt has to be made in each case to reach a conclusion which would be reasonable on the merits and would be fair and just to both the parties. It would be interesting to notice in this connection that all the tribunals that have dealt with the present dispute have consistently directed that existing wages should not be reduced to the prejudice of the workmen. In other words, though each tribunal attempted to constitute a wage structure in the light of the materials furnished to it, a saving clause has been added every time protecting the interests of such workmen as were drawing higher wages before. Even so, it would not be right to hold that there is a rigid and inexorable convention that the wage structure once fixed by Industrial Tribunals can never be changed to the prejudice of workmen." These observations would indicate that it is only under very extraordinary circumstances that wage rates once fixed can be altered to the prejudice of the workmen. A reduction in the rates of wages should not be lightly effected as that would create unhealthy feeling among the workers which in turn will generate industrial disharmony. 6. Mr. K. V. Suryanarayana Iyer, on behalf of the petitioner, referred me to the evidence as regards the prevailing rates of wages for the workmen in the rubber estates of Malayalam Plantations and Pierce Leslie & Co., Ltd., and other plantations and said that Government was justified in regularising the rates of wages in Kalady Plantations by reducing them. 6. Mr. K. V. Suryanarayana Iyer, on behalf of the petitioner, referred me to the evidence as regards the prevailing rates of wages for the workmen in the rubber estates of Malayalam Plantations and Pierce Leslie & Co., Ltd., and other plantations and said that Government was justified in regularising the rates of wages in Kalady Plantations by reducing them. I do not think that this has much relevance in dealing with the question under consideration. The 1st respondent was not framing an ideal wags structure for the workers in the Kalady Plantations. The 1st respondent was only considering the limited question whether the cut in the wage rates by Ext. M-7 was justified. What Government has done by Ext. M-7 was simply to accept the recommendation of the Director of Rubber Plantations for reducing the wages of the workers in the Plantations. No justifiable reasons were given for it in the order. Government did not purport to base its decision for reducing the wage rates in Ext. M-7 on the ground that the rates of wages prevailing in comparable rubber plantations in the region are lower. The Government has admitted in Ext. M-7 that it was in view of the high demand for labour and enhanced wage rates prevailing in the locality that higher rates of wages were fixed in Ext. M-6 and not on account of the fact that those were the rates paid by the Forest Department for their casual labourers. As the reasons for fixing the higher rates of wages in Ext. M-6 have not been shown to have ceased to exist at the time when Government passed Ext. M-7 order, and as there is no other reasons mentioned in Ext. M-7 except the fact that the rates of wages in Kodumon Plantations are lower a circumstance in existence at the time of passing Ext. M-6 I do not think that the 1st respondent committed an error of law in thinking that there was no justification for effecting the cut. As I have already said, the 1st respondent was not considering the question of an ideal wage structure for the workers in Kalady Plantations, I am not, therefore, quite satisfied that the 1st respondent committed an error in not adverting in Ext. P-1 award to the prevailing rates of wages in comparable plantations in the region for deciding the justification of the cut. P-1 award to the prevailing rates of wages in comparable plantations in the region for deciding the justification of the cut. I dismiss the petition, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.