JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - Appellants 2 to 5 were employed by Messrs. Cawnpore Textiles. Limited, Kanpur. Respondent No. 1, as junior clerks from before 1948. On December 6, 1948, an order was issued under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act laying down the minimum basic wage and dear-food allowance payable to industrial employees and clerical employees of cotton and woollen textile industry and the Electricity Under takings in U. P. Clauses (2) to (5) provided the details of the minimum basic wages for each category of workmen. Clause (7) provided: "(7) Every employee of an industrial concern or undertaking to which this order applies shall be paid wages including dear-food allowance in accordance with the provisions of clauses (2), (3) and {5): Provided, firstly, that where the consolidated wage payable to an employee who was on the pay roll of the concern or undertaking on November 30, 1948, is more than the consolidated wage payable in accordance with the provisions of the said clauses the difference shall be paid to him as personal wage: Provided, secondly that the personal wage shall be absorbed in any increments earned in future in basic wage." 2. The consolidated wage Payable to the appellants on November 30, 1948, was more than the consolidated ware calculated in accordance with the 1948 Order. The difference was declared to be their personal wage. At that time there was no time scale available to junior clerks in this company. They continued to draw the excess as their personal wage. 3. On July 29, 1960, the Governor made another Order under Section 3 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act in pursuance of the recommendations of the Central Wage Board. It inter alia, laid down the time scale for junior clerks. It also provided the rates of dear-food allowance and special high cost allowance. This Order came into force from January 1, 1960. It provided that the payment of wages and allowance in accordance with this Order shall commence from August 1, 1960. There is no dispute that the appellants' basic wage was fitted in the time scale provided in the 1960 Order on the basis of the basic ware paid to them without taking into consideration the personal wage. Under the 1960 order Junior clerks earned an increment every year according to the time scale. There is no dispute that the appellants' basic wage was fitted in the time scale provided in the 1960 Order on the basis of the basic ware paid to them without taking into consideration the personal wage. Under the 1960 order Junior clerks earned an increment every year according to the time scale. With effect from January 1, 1962 the management absorbed the personal wage payable to them under the 1948 order against the increments earned by them from January, 1, 1962, onwards. This led to an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow. By its award dated 9-12-1964 the Tribunal held that the absorption could be done only in those uses where the junior clerk had earned an increment in a time scale which was in existence in 1948: but in those cases, like the present ones, where a time scale is fixed for the first time after the coming into force of the 1948 Order, the second proviso to clause (7) of that Order was inapplicable, with the result that in the case of the appellants the personal wage could not be absorbed as against future increments earned by them. 4. Aggrieved, the respondent company filed a writ petition. A learned single Judge did not agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. He held that the, second proviso applied to the increments earned in future in whatsoever manner they may have been earned. On this view the writ petition was allowed and the award was quashed. Aggrieved, the workmen have come up in appeal. 5. The 1960 Order modifies the 1948 Order. In case it is held that the 1960 Order completely supplants the 1948 Order, the position would be that since there is no provision for personal wage in the 1960 Order the appellants will no longer be entitled to personal wage. In case it is held, as appears to us to be the correct position, that the 1960 Order modifies those provisions in the 1948 Order for which a specific provision is made in it, the position is that the 1960 Order does not speak at all about personal wage. It can be assumed that the Governor knew that under the 1948 order certain employees were being paid personal wages. It can be assumed that the Governor knew that under the 1948 order certain employees were being paid personal wages. If it was intended to affect them by abolishing the payment of the personal wage or ensuring its continued payment as such, some specific provision would have been made in the 1960 Order. An absence of this topic in the 1960 Order would indicate an intention that the provisions of the 1948 Order will operate harmoniously with the other provisions of the 1960 Order. The 1960 Order fixed a wage scale for workmen like junior clerks for whom admittedly there was no wage scale in concerns like the respondent company. Absence of any express provision in the 1960 Order would support an intention that the second proviso to clause (7) of the 1948 Order would continue to apply to this category of workmen also. 6. The second proviso stated that the personal wage shall be absorbed in any increment earned in future in basic wage. The language is wide. It applies to any increment that the workmen may earn in future. In our opinion, there is nothing in this proviso to indicate that it spoke of increments earned in a wage scale which was already in existence. It speaks of any increments earned in future, no matter what the source or authority of the increment may be. So long as no increment as such is earned by the workmen, absorption cannot take place but once the workmen earned an increment, the provision with regard to absorption will be come applicable. Here, by reason of fixation of a time scale the junior clerks earned increment every year. It is true that the absorption could not be done at the time of their fitment in the new scale for the first time, but when the workmen started earning increment in the time scale in which they had already been fitted, the absorption could legitimately be made. In our opinion the learned single Judge took a correct view of the law. 7. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.