JUDGMENT : Wanchoo, CJI. 1. An industrial dispute between the appellants and their workmen was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad. The appellants carry on the business of excavating gypusm in Bhadwasi under a contract with the Associated Cement Companies Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). The disputes related to (i) wages, (ii) bonus for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60, (iii) holidays and leave, (iv) provident fund, and (v) housing facilities. The workmen demanded increase in wages along with dearness allowance, increase in the number of days of casual leave and national and festival holidays, introduction of provident fund scheme at 8= per cent, bonus for the two years in dispute at the rate of four months' wages and finally housing facilities or house rent allowance in lieu thereof. 2. The appellants contended that it had not the financial capacity to pay any increase in wages because they were working under a contract with the Company and the amount provided in the contract for payment to the appellants did not admit of any increase in wages. Further the appellants contended that the wages paid by them were more than the wages paid in the same industry in the region and therefore there was no case for any increase. Similarly the appellants contended that their financial capacity would not permit the introduction of any provident fund scheme. As for bonus the appellants contention was that there was no available surplus from which any bonus could be paid. In the matter of holidays the appellants were prepared to allow some increase but not to the extent demanded by the workmen. Finally, as to housing facilities, the appellants contended that they had not the financial capacity to provide residential quarters for workmen as demanded or to give any house rent allowance. They also pointed out that they had provided some rest houses already. 3. The Tribunal held, after saying that it had kept in view the financial condition of the appellants, that wages should be increased and provided for increase alround. It is unnecessary at this stage to refer to the increase allowed by the Tribunal in detail. As to holidays, the Tribunal held that the present weekly holiday, which was being given to the workmen without payment of wages should in future be given with wages. It is unnecessary at this stage to refer to the increase allowed by the Tribunal in detail. As to holidays, the Tribunal held that the present weekly holiday, which was being given to the workmen without payment of wages should in future be given with wages. As to festival holidays it accepted the concession of the appellants and increased them and fixed their number at eight per year. As to casual leave it ordered that workmen should get casual leave for ten days with wages after putting in 240 days continuous service and in case of sickness casual leave would be granted on production of medical certificate or on personal satisfaction of the authority concerned. As to provident fund, the Tribunal ordered that a provident fund scheme should be introduced and deduction should be made at the rate of 8 per cent of total emoluments of each workmen per year with an equal amount contributed by the appellants. As to housing facilities, the Tribunal directed that the appellants should construct aluminium houses if they liked and if they were cheaper and let them on rent to the workmen at the rate of Re 1 or Rs 2 per month or the appellants should construct more huts, shelter houses and the like so that the workmen who would like to remain at the quarry or the railway station, as the case might be, were provided with quarters. The Tribunal was of the view that such an arrangement would not enhance the financial burden of the appellants and directed that this scheme should be given effect to within three years of the award. In this view of the matter it refused to grant house rent allowance. Finally as to bonus, the Tribunal made necessary calculations and came to the conclusion that there was net available surplus in each year in dispute and awarded bonus amounting to Rs 9227/8 for the first year and Rs 9706 for the second year. The appellants have come to this Court from this award by special leave and have attacked the award on all the five matters referred to above. 4. We shall deal with these five matters one by one. But before we do so, we should like to refer to the question of financial capacity of the appellants to bear the burden imposed by the award. 4. We shall deal with these five matters one by one. But before we do so, we should like to refer to the question of financial capacity of the appellants to bear the burden imposed by the award. Though the actual burden imposed by the various provisions in the award has not been worked out, it is clear that a substantial burden has been cast on the appellants by increase in wages, by provision of provident fund, by making weekly holiday a paid holiday in addition to paid festival holidays and ten days paid casual leave and the order relating to housing facilities. It is true that the Tribunal has said at various places in its award that it had kept the financial condition of the appellants in view and that it was of opinion that there would not be any appreciable burden thrown on the appellants, but it has not considered the question of financial capacity of the appellants properly. 5. Now it appears that the appellants are working the mines under a contract with the Company. The contract was entered as far back as 1940 and seems to be continuing. Under that contract payment to be made by the Company to the appellants is indicated and it is out of that payment by the Company that the appellants have to meet the expenses of running the mines. It may be added that after the contract, the Company gave certain increases in 1948 by which it increased the payment to Rs 6/2/3 per ton, which included Re -/9 per ton as the contractors' profit. This rate was further increased to Rs 6/5/3 per ton from 1st November, 1960. It is true that it may be possible for the appellants to ask the Company to increase the rate; even so it is not in the power of the appellants to compel the Company to fix a rate which will necessarily provide for all the increases made by the Tribunal. This aspect of the matter must be borne in mind in fixing the wages and that naturally limits the capacity of the appellants to bear the burden of the increase of wages and other burdens thrown on it by the award. 6. Let us therefore in this background consider the various matters in dispute which now survive. We shall first take the question of holidays. 6. Let us therefore in this background consider the various matters in dispute which now survive. We shall first take the question of holidays. The Tribunal has provided that in future there will be a paid weekly holiday instead of an unpaid weekly holiday. It cannot be said that this decision of the Tribunal is unsupportable, for it seems to us that a paid weekly holiday should generally be the goal which industrial adjudication must keep in mind. Though therefore there is no reason for interference with this provision of the award it must be borne in mind that this one provision alone results in an increase or wages by ?th. Further the Tribunal has increased the paid festival holidays from two to eight This has also thrown additional burden on the appellants. Finally the Tribunal has provided ten days paid casual leave per year while there was none so far. Thus on these two scores also the appellants will have to allow 16 days leave with wages and that again increases the annual burden by about 4 = per cent, which taken together with the weekly paid holiday increases the wages by about 20 per cent per year. We see no reason to interfere with the provision as to festival holidays and casual leave. But we must bear in mind the increased burden on the appellants by the institution of paid weekly holidays, 8 paid festival holidays and 10 days paid casual leave. These three together result in increase of wages to the extent of 20 per cent This has to be borne in mind when we come to the actual increase in wages. 7. Then we come to the question of housing facilities. The Tribunal as already indicated has directed the appellants to provide alminium houses or at any rate huts, shlter houses and the like. The question whether an employer should be asked to provide quarters for his workmen was examined by this Court in the Patna Electric Supply Co. Limited v. Patna Electric Supply Worker's Union, (1959) Supp. The Tribunal as already indicated has directed the appellants to provide alminium houses or at any rate huts, shlter houses and the like. The question whether an employer should be asked to provide quarters for his workmen was examined by this Court in the Patna Electric Supply Co. Limited v. Patna Electric Supply Worker's Union, (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 761 and it was held that "it would be inexpedient in the present financial condition of the industries in the country to impose the additional burden of providing housing facilities on them which should be the primary responsibility of the State." We do not think that conditions have changed since that decision was given and we still think that the responsibility for providing housing facilities should not be thrown on the industries in this country under the present conditions. The order of the Tribunal directing the appellant construct aluminium houses, huts, shelter houses or the like must be set aside on this ground alone. Nor do we think that this is a fit case in which any house rent allowance should be allowed, for generally speaking wage include a provision for house rent. It may be added that the appellants are mere contractors and their contract can be terminated by the Company by giving six months' notice. That is an added reason why the appellants cannot be ordered to construct houses of any kind in this case. We therefore set aside the direction of the Tribunal with respect to housing facilities. 8. We next come to the question of provident fund. As already indicated the Tribunal has directed the institution of provident fund and a contribution of 8 percent by the employers as well as by the employees. It appears that in Bikaner Gypsum Limited, Jamsar, which is in that neighbourhood, there is provident fund. The Tribunal has followed that pattern in ordering introduction of a provident fund scheme on the ground that it appeared reasonable and fair that workmen who did not get any pension or the like should have the benefit of provident fund. We see no reason to disagree with the Tribunal in this respect. But we must again add that this results in an increase of burden by 8 per cent on the appellant. If this is added to the increase of 2 per cent account of paid holidays etc. We see no reason to disagree with the Tribunal in this respect. But we must again add that this results in an increase of burden by 8 per cent on the appellant. If this is added to the increase of 2 per cent account of paid holidays etc. awarded by the Tribunal, we find that a total burden of 28 per cent is thrown on the appellants in addition to the existing wage bill. This should therefore be kept in mind in considering the increase in wages. 9. Turning now to the question of wages, the main contention of the appellants is that they have no capacity to bear the increase allowed by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal did not properly take their capacity into consideration when it ordered this. It seems to us that there is some force in this contention of the appellants. This is all the more so when we take into account the 28 per cent increase due to paid holidays now allowed by the Tribunal and the provident fund scheme introduced by it. Besides this the appellants contend that the Tribunal did not in fixing wages consider the matter on the basis of region-cum-industry and if it had done so it would not have fixed such high wages as it did. We do not think that there is much force in this contention, for the Tribunal has taken into consideration wages paid in neighbouring mines of the same area to some categories of workmen. But we may mention that the appellants pointed out that they had system of petty contractors for excavators. The appellants were willing to do away with this system and bring the workmen on their own pay rolls. This according to appellants, will result in increase in wages received by excavators by 30 per cent It appears that sub- contractors were being paid at the rate of Rs ¼ per ton. Out of this they retained 30 per cent themselves and paid 70 per cent to the workmen under them. The appellants were prepared to increase the payment to Rs 1.31 per ton and also pointed out that if the sub-contractors were eliminated the workmen would get the entire amount and thus their wages would be substantially increased. Out of this they retained 30 per cent themselves and paid 70 per cent to the workmen under them. The appellants were prepared to increase the payment to Rs 1.31 per ton and also pointed out that if the sub-contractors were eliminated the workmen would get the entire amount and thus their wages would be substantially increased. What the Tribunal however did was that it took this concession of the appellants into account and then gave 30 per cent above the rate of Rs 1.31 per ton on the ground that the appellants admitted that the wages would go up by 30 per cent when sub-contractors are eliminated. We are of opinion that there was some misunderstanding by the Tribunal of the concession made by the appellants. What the concession showed was that out of Rs 1.25 per ton paid by the appellants to the sub-contractors, 70 per cent (i.e. 87 paisas) went to the excavators while 30 per cent (i.e. 38 paisa) was retained by the sub-contractors. What the appellants were proposing was that the workmen would be paid directly at the rate of Rs 1.31 for excavating work. That was in our opinion a fair proposal and would have substantially increased the wages. We therefore direct that so far as excavators are concerned the appellants will pay Rs 1.31 per ton directly to them and do away with sub-contractors as conceded by them. The order of the Tribunal fixing Rs 1.75 per ton is therefore varied to this extent. 10. The next contention is with respect to overburden. It appears that payment is made to excavators for over-burden at Jamsar and the Tribunal has allowed the same rate. We are of opinion that that is reasonable and we see no reason to interfere with the direction of the Tribunal. 11. Next we come to transporters i.e. camel men and cart-men. The present rate for these persons is Rs 3.75 per ton for four miles. The Tribunal has increased it to Rs 4 per ton for four miles. We cannot say that the increase is in any way unresonable considering the rise in price since the existing rate was fixed and therefore we maintain the award in this respect. 12. Next we come to wagon loaders. At present they are paid at the rate of 23 paisas per ton. The workmen demanded Re I per ton. We cannot say that the increase is in any way unresonable considering the rise in price since the existing rate was fixed and therefore we maintain the award in this respect. 12. Next we come to wagon loaders. At present they are paid at the rate of 23 paisas per ton. The workmen demanded Re I per ton. The Tribunal has fixed the rate at 30 paisas taking into account the rates prevalent in the same industry in other areas like, Chotisar, Bhadana and Kherat. We cannot say that this is unreasonable and the award in this respect must be upheld. 13. The next dispute relates to loading and unloading labourers over trucks. It is contended by the appellants that these persons were not their workmen. The Tribunal has however found, for reasons which appear to us to be sufficient, that these persons must also be treated as workmen of the appellants and increased their daily wages from Rs 1/12 to Rs 2. This also does not appear to us to call for any interference and the award in this respect must therefore be upheld. 14. Next we come to watermen who are monthly paid workmen and were getting Rs 35 per month at the time of the award. The workmen remanded Rs 70 per month for them. The appellants on the other hand contended that watermen were oldmen and had their own cultivations and that was why they were only paid Rs 35 per month. In Jamsar mines, a khalasi who is equivalent to a watermen gets 35-2=- 55 besides dearness allowance. It appears that there is no separate dearness allowance in the appellants' mines and the Tribunal has therefore fixed a scale of 50-1-70 for watermen. This rate does not appear to us to call for any interference in the circumstances. 15. Then we come to Jamadars. The Tribunal has compared Jamadars to mates in Jamsar who are in the grade of 40-2=-60 with dearness allowance Rs 42 or Rs 46 per mensem. The Tribunal has fixed Jamadars in the grade of 70-2-90 and this does not call for any interference from us. 16. Then we come to bullock-cart drivers who were getting Rs 55 at the time of the award. The workmen demanded that their wages should be increased to Rs 70 per mensem. The Tribunal has fixed them in the grade of 60-2-70. 16. Then we come to bullock-cart drivers who were getting Rs 55 at the time of the award. The workmen demanded that their wages should be increased to Rs 70 per mensem. The Tribunal has fixed them in the grade of 60-2-70. This again does not call for any interference from us. 17. Then we come to black-smiths. They were getting Rs 80 per mensem at the time of the award. The Tribunal has fixed them in the grade of 90-2-100 after comparing them with blacksmiths elsewhere who are in the grade of 55 - 5 - 85 plus dearness allowance at the rate of Rs 46 per mensem. But as the demand was only for Rs 90 per mensem, the Tribunal should not go beyond that. So we vary the award and fixed the pay of blacksmiths at Rs 90 p.m. 18. Lastly we come to peons. They are monthly rated workmen and were getting Rs 45 per mensem at the time of the award. The Tribunal has fixed them in the grade of 50-1-70 taking into account the grade and dearness allowance as paid in other mines in the same region. In the circumstances there is no case for interference by us. 19. We now come to the question of bonus. Two main points have been urged before us in this connection - firstly, interest on the invested capital should have been allowed at 6 per cent instead of 4 per cent and secondly, remuneration of partners who work themselves should have been allowed, and the appellants claimed Rs 21,600 per year for all the partners. So far as interest on invested capital is concerned, it is usually allowed at Rs 6 per cent the Tribunal has given no reason why it has not allowed that rate in the present case. We would therefore allow 6 per cent on paid up capital for both the years in dispute. As to the remuneration of partners, the Tribunal has allowed nothing on that score, and its main reason for doing so is that in the account no salary has been shown for partners. That is because this is a proprietary concern and the partners divide the entire profit amongst themselves. As to the remuneration of partners, the Tribunal has allowed nothing on that score, and its main reason for doing so is that in the account no salary has been shown for partners. That is because this is a proprietary concern and the partners divide the entire profit amongst themselves. It is not in dispute that the partners themselves look after the work and one of them actually lives permanently at the site of the mine and may be taken to be in the position of a paid manager. Other partners only look after the business part time. It cannot therefore be said that the appellants were claiming a fictional salary, for at any rate one of the partners was actually living at the site; if there had been an employee instead he would have had to be paid a salary. In Tulsi Das Khimji v. Workmen, (1963) 1 SCR 2 SCR 67 this Court noticed the question whether deduction should be allowed for partners working in the business. In that case the partners claimed Rs 96,000 per year towards their remuneration and the Tribunal allowed Rs 2000 on that score. This Court was of the view that the amount allowed was low but did not fix any amount itself. In any case, where partners carry on the business, they are entitled to some deduction towards partners' remuneration. In the present case the appellants claimed Rs 21,600. It does appear that one partner lives permanently at the site of the mine while other partners look after the business part-time. In the circumstances the Tribunal was not right in allowing nothing towards partners' remuneration. Taking into account everything we think a sum of Rs 12,000 per year would be reasonable remuneration for one partner who devotes full time to the business and other partners who look after it part-time. On our making these two changes in the finding of the Tribunal, accounts worked out by the Tribunal stand thus: 1958-59 (Pt. Table place)