JUDGMENT : Shelat, J. 1. These three appeals, by special leave, arise out of awards made by the Tribunals all Bangalore, Hyderabad and Quillon and relate to the demands made by the workmen of the appellant Company employed at its branches at Bangalore. Hyderabad, Visakhapattam, Trivandrum and Ernakulam. The demands with which these appeals are concerned were for (a) lunch allowance, (b) medical facilities, and (c) batha The question as to lunch allowance arises in CAs 856 and 1475 of 1968 filed by the company against its workmen engaged at its branch offices at Bangalore, Trivcndrum" and Ernakulam, the question as to medical facilities arises in all the three appeals and the question as to batha arises only in CA 2119 of 1968 against the workmen at the branch offices at Hyderabad and Visakhapattam. 2. The demand as to lunch allowance was two-fold, that it should be increased from the present rate of 75 paise to Re 1 and should be paid to all the workmen. It was made in the following circumstances. 3. The company's factory and head office are at Calcutta, but it has five regional offices including one at Madras which have under them branch offices numbering 33. The regional office at Madras controls the branch offices at Bangalore, Hyderabad, Visakhapattam, Trivendrum and Ernakulam. At the material time the Bangalore office had 15 employees in all, of whom 9 were mechanics and the rest were clerks. At each of the offices at Ernakulam and Trivendrum there were only 6 employees. The company's practice was to pay 75 paise per day as lunch allowance to those workmen only who were required to go outside the city limits and consequently were not able to return to office during lunch hour. The object of paying this allowance was obviously to reimburse the workman of the extra expenditure which he would presumably incur by having to take his midday meal outside as a result of his not being able to return to the office during the lunch hour. The object of paying this allowance was obviously to reimburse the workman of the extra expenditure which he would presumably incur by having to take his midday meal outside as a result of his not being able to return to the office during the lunch hour. The demand was based on the grounds that the appellant company was an all India concern, that it paid lunch allowance to all its workmen at Calcutta and Delhi, and that its refusal to pay this allowance to all workmen and limiting it to those workmen only who were not able to return to the office from outdoor work outside the city limits amounted to discrimination between its employees at Calcutta and Delhi and those at Bangalore, Ernakulam and Trivendrum. The company's reply was that the demand for lunch allowance was conceded to the workmen at Calcutta and Delhi because of certain peculiar conditions existing there, namely, that the workmen had to come from long distances, sometimes covering a distance of about 25 miles, that in Calcutta a number of industrial establishments were giving lunch allowance and therefore the company had to concede the demand in accordance with the principle of industry-cum-region and lastly that the concession of lunch allowance to all workmen at Calcutta was part of a package deal settled between the company and the workmen. The company also stated that the lunch allowance was not available in any of its branches except in Calcutta and Delhi, that the wage scales of the company's workmen had in recent times been revised by various awards, that they and the dearness allowance paid by the company which was linked with the index of living had taken into account the cost of food and consequently, if the lunch allowance was granted it would mean a double reimbursement of the cost of food incurred by the workmen. There was, therefore, according to the company, no valid reason for extending the lunch allowance to other branches. It further contended that since the accepted principle which governed industrial adjudication was industry-cum-region, no question of discrimination could be said to arise as between its workmen at Calcutta and Delhi and those at these branches. 4. There was, therefore, according to the company, no valid reason for extending the lunch allowance to other branches. It further contended that since the accepted principle which governed industrial adjudication was industry-cum-region, no question of discrimination could be said to arise as between its workmen at Calcutta and Delhi and those at these branches. 4. The Tribunal at Bangalore conceded the workmen's demand that the rate of lunch allowance should be raised from 75 paise to Re 1 and that it should be available to all workmen and should not be restricted to those only who were sent out for work beyond the city limits and could not return to office during lunch hour. In doing so, the Tribunal was impressed by three factors: (1) financial ability of the company, (2) discrimination result from giving lunch allowance to all workmen at Delhi and Calcutta on the one hand and denial of it to the workmen at other branches especially as the employees of the company were transferable and enjoyed uniform conditions of work, and (3) that Voltas at Bangalore Dunlop Rubber Co., at Madras and Gestetner Co. and G.E.C. Co. paid lunch allowance to their employees. 5. As to the third ground, however, the Tribunal was not quite correct. There was evidence of the manager of the Bangalore office that Voltas were paying lunch allowance to those only who had to work outside the establishment and were not able to return home for lunch during the lunch hour. As regards Gestetner Co. the Tribunal appears to have made contradictory statements, for, while considering the evidence it clearly stated that the company paid lunch allowance only to those workmen who worked during the lunch hour. There was, however, evidence to show that Dunlop Rubber Co. and East Asiatic Pvt. Ltd. paid lunch allowance to all their workmen. But Dunlop Rubber Co. is situate at Hyderabad and the East Asiatic Pvt. Ltd. is situate at Madras. There was no evidence that either of them had a branch office at Bangalore. It is thus clear that the workmen could not produce any evidence that any industrial concern at Bangalore was paying lunch allowance to its workmen. Mr Ramamurthi who supported this part of the award was, therefore, not right in the submission that there were concerns in Bangalore region who were granting lunch allowance to all their workmen. 6. It is thus clear that the workmen could not produce any evidence that any industrial concern at Bangalore was paying lunch allowance to its workmen. Mr Ramamurthi who supported this part of the award was, therefore, not right in the submission that there were concerns in Bangalore region who were granting lunch allowance to all their workmen. 6. As regards the first ground, it is true that in the present case there was no question of the company being unable to bear the additional burden of lunch allowance. But the fact that an employer is able to bear the burden is not the criterion. The foundation of the principle of industry-cum-region is that as far as possible there should be uniformity of conditions of service in comparable concerns in the industry in the region so that there is no imbalance in the conditions of service between workmen in one establishment and those in the rest. The danger otherwise would be migration of labour to the one where there are more favourable conditions from those where conditions are less favourable. Therefore, the mere fact that a particular concern can bear an additional liability would by itself be no ground to impose upon it such extra obligation. Equally important is the fact that the wage structure prevailing in the appellant company is undisputably fair and the dearness allowance paid to the workmen has been, as aforesaid, linked with the index of cost of living. These must take care of the rise in the cost of living from time to time. If, therefore, the company were to be compelled to pay lunch allowance to all workmen including those who work at the offices it would in fact mean a double provision for the constituent of the cost of food already provided for in the wage scales and the rates of dearness allowance. The force of this aspect was recognised by this Court in Mcleod and Company Ltd. v. Workmen, 1964 (5) SCR 568 , 571. 7. Mr Ramamurthi's contention, however, was that since the appellant company is an all India concern and there are uniform conditions of work in all its branches it is necessary that if workmen are paid lunch allowance at Calcutta and Delhi the same should also be paid to workmen elsewhere so as to avoid a feeling of discrimination amongst the workmen at other centres. He argued that the principle of industry-cum-region should not be applied with the same rigidity as it is applied in questions of wage scales and dearness allowance. We doubt whether such a proposition can be sustained, for, acceptance of it would mean cutting holes in a principle which industrial adjudication has for a number of years accepted and which has lent a certain amount of uniformity in a field where problems have to be resolved on a pragmatic approach. In Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, 1960 (2) SCR 51 this Court emphasised that even in matters such as gratuity and the age of retirement this principle should be applied and even though a concern were to be an all India concern having uniform conditions of service applicable to all of its workmen at its various centres, if such conditions, though having the merit of uniformity, prove either unfair or not in accord with the prevailing conditions in the particular region it would be the duty of the Tribunal to make suitable changes to bring those conditions in tune with the conditions prevailing in that region. A similar contention that free tiffin should be provided for to workmen at the company's offices at the Ghats just as it was provided to the employees in its head offices at the Ghats just as it was provided to the employees in its head Employees. In point of tact, the ground of uniformity or discrimination cannot be legitimately urged as Tribunals in Bombay and Hyderabad have rejected such a demand of the workmen here of this very company and no appeals against their orders were filed. Likewise, the Tribunal at Madras also rejected such a demand of the company's workmen there, the workmen thereupon filed a special leave petition in this Court and that was dismissed. The result is that none of the 3 grounds relied on by the Tribunal on this part of its award can be upheld. 8. The Labour Court at Quillon, out of whose award CA 1475 of 1968 arises, allowed the demand for lunch allowance on two grounds (1) that though there were no concerns in the region giving such an allowance, the appellant company being a well-settled concern, should take the lead and grant this facility, and (2) that the Tribunal at Bangalore had granted this allowance to the workmen. Since we have not upheld the award of the Bangalore Tribunal relating to this demand the precedent of the Bangalore Tribunal would not avail. The fact that the company is a well-settled concern and can bear the additional burden of lunch allowance would also be no ground for conceding the demand if it has no justification. Thus, neither of the two awards, so far as the demand for lunch allowance is concerned, can be upheld. 9. Mr Gokhale for the company, however, conceded that the company would have no objection if the allowance at present paid to the workmen sent out of the city limits were to be raised from 75 paise to Re 1. We, therefore, set aside the awards in these two appeals on the question of lunch allowance but direct the company to pay Re 1 as lunch allowance to workmen sent out beyond the city limits who are not able to return to the offices during the lunch period and who consequently are forced to have their midday meals outside. 10. We come next to the question of medical facilities which arises in all the three appeals. The demand by the workmen at Bangalore office was that the company should reimburse the workmen of medical expenses incurred by them both for themselves and the members of their families on production by them of bills or cash vouchers. The grounds urged for the demand were that the company has introduced a scheme of medical benefit in Calcutta under which the employees are reimbursed of medical expenses incurred by them, that since the company pays the medical expenses of its officers at Bangalore there is no reason why other employees should also not be so reimbursed, that the Employees' State Insurance Scheme does not apply to the Bangalore area, and lastly, that many of the concerns in Bangalore have appointed their own doctors for consultation by and treatment of their employees. The company's reply was that medical facility was an amenity and therefore like wage scales and dearness allowance must be governed by the principle of industry-cum-region. It also urged that the company had no scheme for medical facilities in the whole of the Madras region under which Bangalore branch fell and therefore no exception for Bangalore could be made. The company's reply was that medical facility was an amenity and therefore like wage scales and dearness allowance must be governed by the principle of industry-cum-region. It also urged that the company had no scheme for medical facilities in the whole of the Madras region under which Bangalore branch fell and therefore no exception for Bangalore could be made. As far as its workmen at Calcutta were concerned, it explained that the scheme for medical facilities here was introduced as a result of a consent award which award was a package deal including several other demands. The Bangalore Tribunal, however, allowed the demand and directed the company to reimburse the workmen of medical expenses incurred by them both for themselves and their families. In Trivendrum and Ernakulam branches there were at the material time only 12 employees in all. Their demand was the same as that of the workmen at Bangalore. The ESI Scheme was also not applicable to those offices. The Tribunal at Quillon conceded the demand on three grounds: (1) financial ability of the company, (2) that though other concerns in the region did not grant this facility the company should take a lead, and (3) that as the company had given this facility in Calcutta it should not discriminate the workmen in this region. The Tribunal at Hyderabad also granted the demand and gave elaborate directions. The grounds given by the Tribunal for granting this facility were (1) that medical facilities were given in Calcutta, (2) that there were some concerns in Hyderabad region giving this facility, (3) that in the regional office at Madras certain officers and members of the staff in the sales department were given this facility without any ceiling, and (4) that if the members of the sales staff were given this facility there was no reason why the rest of the workmen, who equally contributed to the making of the profits of the company, should not be given the same benefit. The Tribunal on these grounds directed that (a) the workmen should be entitled to medical facility without any ceiling but such facility should not be extended to the members of their families, (b) workmen who suffered from veneral diseases, cholera, epidemics, smallpox or leprosy would not be entitled to the medical aid and (c) workmen should be entitled to expenses for hospitalisation, if necessary. The Tribunal directed the company to engage one or more doctors to whom the workmen would go for treatment, that such doctor should prescribe the necessary medicines and such medicines should be dispensed to the workmen by a chemist named by the management and that the company should meet the expenses of consultation, prescription and medicines. If the doctor thought it necessary and he had a provision for hospitalisation, the company should meet the expenses therefor. If the doctor had no such facility the workman should be sent to a hospital named by the doctor and the company should bear the expenses on vouchers certified by the doctor and the bill of the hospital in which the worker had been hospitalised. It further directed that if it was not possible for the doctor to attend to the workman at the company's office or at the residence of the doctor on account of the illness being serious the workman should send a requisition to the company on receipt of which it should direct the doctor to visit him at his residence and the expenses of such visit, if certified by the doctor, should be met by the management. 11. Mr Gokhale argued (1) that the provision for medical facilities is the responsibility not of the employer but, in a welfare State, of the Government, (2) that assuming that it is an employer's obligation, medical expenses which a workman would ordinarily have to incur are looked after and taken into account when fair wages are settled, and (3) that in any event medical facilities including those to the workmen's families and without any ceiling cannot be sustained. In our view there is considerable force in the third contention. The Tribunals in these cases not only did not fix any ceiling but also did not define who would be the members of the family of a workman. Obviously, in such a scheme the possibility of its being abused cannot be altogether ruled out. It was therefore, necessary that if the Tribunal desired to impose such an additional obligation on the company it should have made a proper scheme defining the limits of the company's obligation both as to the ceiling of the benefit and the beneficiaries thereunder. Vague and indefinite directions instead of fostering harmony are likely to open up a vista for future bickerings and disputes in their implementation. 12. Vague and indefinite directions instead of fostering harmony are likely to open up a vista for future bickerings and disputes in their implementation. 12. There is also force in the first and the second contentions of Mr Gokhale. But it must be remembered that in the present state of our national economy and the limited means at the disposal of Governments although the primary responsibility in the matter of its citizens' health in a welfare state falls on the State, it cannot discharge fully that responsibility. It is also true that while fixing fair wages medical expenses which a workman might ordinarily have to incur are taken into consideration, but that is to a limited extent only, for, even fair wages cannot include expenses which a workman might have to incur in case of serious or prolonged ill-health or other such ailment. In a fair and just economy, therefore, a provision wherever possible can be made to neutralise such an expenditure incurred by workmen. It cannot, therefore, be said that a Tribunal has no power in proper cases to call upon an employer to shoulder part of this burden in the interest of industrial harmony and good and cooperative relations. This, no doubt, should be done alter taking care that the industry is not unduly burdened or the scheme is not wrongly exploited or abused. 13. The fact that the company has provided medical facilities to its workmen in Calcutta may not be a good ground for the demand of such facilities to the workmen in Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kerala. But what seems to have weighed with the Tribunals was the fact that the company has been giving medical facilities to its officers as also to the members of the sales department in the regional office at Madras under which these branches operate. If the company is giving medical facilities to some of its staff, there is, in our view, considerable justification in the Tribunals' reasoning that there was no reason why its lower paid staff should not be extended such facilities. There would equally be no valid reason for giving a more favourable treatment to some as against the rest in the very same region especially as there is no question of the company being financially unable to take upon itself this obligation. There would equally be no valid reason for giving a more favourable treatment to some as against the rest in the very same region especially as there is no question of the company being financially unable to take upon itself this obligation. In these circumstances it is impossible to say that the conclusion reached by the Tribunals that medical benefit should be extended to the rest of the employees of the company was either unreasonable or unjust. 14. But the directions given by the Tribunals without any limit and extending the benefit also to the families of the workmen cannot be upheld. Since we were satisfied that the company can and should shoulder the obligation of medical facilities, we asked Mr Gokhale to give us the scheme under which the workmen at Calcutta are given the medical facilities. Considering that scheme and the circumstances prevailing at those branch offices we propose to give the following directions, which we think are fair and reasonable. 1. When a workman during the course of his duty requires medical attention, and where such attention is given by the company doctor (i.e. a doctor or doctors nominated by the company including a doctor nominated as a part-time doctor) and medicines are prescribed by him, the cost of such prescription should be borne by the company; 2. In the event of a workman falling sick at his residence and the illness is other than a veneral disease, leprosy, smallpox, typhoid or cholera, he should be paid the cost of the medicines prescribed; 3. Bills or cash vouchers pertaining to such prescription should be produced for counter signature of the company's doctor before payment is authorised; 4. Disease of a serious nature requiring hospitalisation will be subject to consideration by the company; 5. At the time of employment the company will be entitled to get the prospective employees examined by the company's doctor and their employment will be subject to being found medically fit; 6. All company employees who are presently employed or those employed in future will be medically examined by the company doctor once a year or at such other periodical intervals determined by the company but results of such medical examinations will not be prejudicial to the workmen's employment. 7. All company employees who are presently employed or those employed in future will be medically examined by the company doctor once a year or at such other periodical intervals determined by the company but results of such medical examinations will not be prejudicial to the workmen's employment. 7. In case a workman is found medically unfit to continue in service the company will decide his case in consultation with the union's- secretary; and 8. This scheme will come to an end as and when the Employees' State Insurance Scheme is extended to the employees concerned. 15. These directions in our view should remove the feeling of the workmen in these branch offices that the company discriminates them as against the executives and the sales staff. We accordingly modify the award of the three Tribunals in respect of this demand. 16. The question of payment of batha arises only in CA No 2119 if 1968 from the award by the Tribunal at Hyderabad and relates to workmen at Hyderabad and Visakhapattam though the award through mistake mentions only Hyderabad. Even the reference originally mentioned Hyderabad only and had to be amended subsequently so as to include the workmen at Visakhapattam. 17. The question of batha arose because the company has to send out its workmen to outstations in connection with the work of maintenance, installation and repairs. A workman who has to stay overnight at such places has to be reimbursed for the extra expenditure he incurs as a result of his being away from his place of residence. In 1955 the company fixed the batha as follows: Rs. 5 per day to a workman drawing salary upto Rs. 85, Rs. 6.50 per day to a workman drawing salary upto Rs. 250 and Rs. 8.50 per day to a workman drawing salary over Rs. 250. In addition, if a workman was sent to a hill station he was allowed an extra Rs. 1.50 per day. Batha is paid only if a workman has to stay away from his place of residence for the night. The union demanded revision of these scales and asked for Rs. 10 per day for a workman drawing salary of less than Rs. 100, Rs. 12.50 per day for a workman drawing salary between Rs. 101 and Rs. 150 and Rs. 15 per day to a workman drawing salary over Rs. 150. The union demanded revision of these scales and asked for Rs. 10 per day for a workman drawing salary of less than Rs. 100, Rs. 12.50 per day for a workman drawing salary between Rs. 101 and Rs. 150 and Rs. 15 per day to a workman drawing salary over Rs. 150. It contended that the minimum expenditure which a workman would have to incur would be Rs. 10 per day which would consist of Rs. 3 for a room in a hotel. Rs. 1.50 for porterage, Rs. 3.50 for two meals. Rs. 1.50 for local conveyance and Rs. 00.50 for laundry. It also contended that since May 1960 the company had been paying to its executives and the members of its sales staff batha varying from Rs. 7 to Rs. 14 per day plus conveyance allowance and first class railway fare. The union, therefore, urged that the batha for the mechanic and the other workmen should be revised and should vary from Rs. 10 to Rs. 15. The company resisted the demand contending that the batha paid to the workmen was fair and even generous. 18. There was evidence before the Tribunal that M/s Godrej and Boyee have been paying Rs. 7.50 per day and Voltas sums varying from Rs. 6 to Rs. 12.50 per day. There was also evidence that the appellant company has been paying Rs. 14 per day to its executive officers and its salesmen. The union also urged before the Tribunal that provision should be made for medical facilities to a workman in the event of his falling ill when away on duty. The Tribunal held that considering the present cost of living a workman away from his place of duty would have to spend Rs. 3 for a room in a hotel, Rs. 3 for two meals, Re 1 for tiffin and Rs. 3 for conveyance, laundry and porterage, in all Rs. 10 per day. This being according to the Tribunal the minimum expenses, it did away with the graded scale adopted by the company since 1955 and allowed one uniform scale of Rs. 10 per day to all those drawing salary upto Rs. 500 per month. The Tribunal then drew up an elaborate scheme to make provision against a workman falling ill while he was on outstation duty. 10 per day to all those drawing salary upto Rs. 500 per month. The Tribunal then drew up an elaborate scheme to make provision against a workman falling ill while he was on outstation duty. Though the Tribunal conceded that there was force in the company's contention that such a scheme was likely to be abused, the Tribunal, nonetheless, framed a scheme giving detailed directions therein. 19. This part of the award has been contested by the company on the grounds (1) that it was too excessive, and (2) that the scheme framed by the Tribunal for providing medical expenses to a workman falling ill while he is away from the headquarters was liable to be misused, besides being impossible of any supervision or control by the company. Its contentions were that batha is not an additional remuneration but is intended to reimburse the workman of any expenditure which he has to incur over and above his usual expenses when he is at the headquarters, that the sliding of the company based on the standard of living of the different classes of workmen should not have been done away with as such a sliding scale prevails not only in other concerns but also in Government departments, that porterage and local conveyance are not necessary expenses which a workman has always to incur, that provision for medical expenses when a workman falls ill when he is at an outstation is not justified as it would be an unusual and rare occasion when he would fall ill while he is away. The Tribunal having already provided in its award medical facilities such a scheme was both unnecessary and liable to be abused especially as supervision and control over such a workman when he is away from his headquarters would be impossible. The argument of Mr Ramamurthi was that a uniform rate of Rs. 10 per day was justified because what the Tribunal did was to fix the minimum required by a workman when he was away. To that the company's answer was that Rs. 10 would be over and above the expenditure by way of meals, tiffins etc. which the workman would incur if he was not away and the award of Rs. 10 per day, therefore, becomes an additional remuneration rather than a mere reimbursement of the extra expenditure which he would incur when he was away from the headquarters. 10 would be over and above the expenditure by way of meals, tiffins etc. which the workman would incur if he was not away and the award of Rs. 10 per day, therefore, becomes an additional remuneration rather than a mere reimbursement of the extra expenditure which he would incur when he was away from the headquarters. Mr Gokhale pointed out that as a result of awards batha is being paid at the following rates: At Madras Rs. 6.50 upto a salary of Rs. 85 per month, Rs. 8 per day on a salary upto Rs. 250 and Rs. 10 per day to a workman drawing salary upto Rs. 350. At Bangalore Rs. 61 per day to a workman drawing a salary of Rs. 85 per month, Rs. 7.50 to a workman drawing salary upto Rs. 250 per month and Rs. 9.50 to a workman drawing a salary above Rs. 500. Therefore, argued Mr. Gokhale, there was no justification for awarding batha on a scale higher than that paid at these places. 20. There is in our view considerable force in this contention. The award of the Tribunal goes beyond the usual concept of batha in that Rs. 10 per day awarded by the Tribunal does not take into account the normal expenses that the workman would incur if he was at the headquarters. We think that the Madras rates are proper and fair and which we should adopt for the workmen at Hyderabad and Visakhapattam. So far as the provisions made by the Tribunal against a workman falling ill at an outstation are concerned, such an event would not be a normal occurrence requiring any elaborate scheme. Besides, it contains possibilities for future disputes. For instance, the provision for the company to reimburse itself of expenditure incurred by it when it is found that it was abused by a workman would lead to bickerings between the parties. In view of the fact that the company will henceforth provide medical facilities and the workman falling ill when he is away being not a normal occurrence we do not think that a scheme as framed by the Tribunal is really necessary. We, therefore, set aside the Tribunal's award on the question of batha and direct that the company will pay batha to its workmen at Hyderabad and Visakhapattam on the scales at which it is being paid at Madras. 21. We, therefore, set aside the Tribunal's award on the question of batha and direct that the company will pay batha to its workmen at Hyderabad and Visakhapattam on the scales at which it is being paid at Madras. 21. In the result we direct that lunch allowance payable by the company to workmen at its branch offices at Bangalore, Trivendrum and Ernakulam will be at the rate of Re 11 payable to a workman who is sent out for work outside the city limits and is therefore unable to return to the establishment during the lunch period. Regarding the demand for medical facilities we direct the company to provide those facilities in the manner hereinabove stated. As regards batha, the company will pay to workmen at Hyderabad and Visakhapattam batha at the scales at which it pays to its workmen at Madras. The appeals are accordingly partly allowed and the awards are modified to the extent abovestated. In view of the conditional stay order passed during the pendency of this appeal the medical bills submitted by the workmen to the company will be dealt with in accordance with the scheme as to medical benefit hereinabove set out as if that scheme was in force then. The company will pay to the workmen costs of these appeals. One set of hearing fee only.