JUDGMENT DHARMADHIKARI J.- This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s Rajaram Rokade and Brothers, a partnership firm engaged in doing business of manufacturing picture and photo frames at Nagpur. The respondents employees through their elected representatives gave a notice of change under section ~ (2) read with rule 52 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 raising certain demands. As no agreement was reached between the parties, a further notice was served by the elected representatives under section 54 (7) read with rule 62 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. As the negotiations failed before the Conciliator, the Conciliator made a failure report to the Government. On the basis of the report submitted by the Conciliator, the Government of Maharashtra made a reference to the Industrial Court at Nagpur, under section 73(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. This reference was registered as Reference (ICN) No.9 of 1968. 2. The employer resisted the claim made by the employees by filing the written statement and in the said written statement he further raised certain preliminary questions. However, it is not necessary to go into the said preliminary issues as the said questions are not pressed and for argued before us. In this Reference also a contention was raised on behalf of the employer that the carpenters or Polishwalas for whom a revision of pay scale is being demanded, are not employees within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. From paragraph 6 of the Award, it is quite obvious that the same evidence which was adduced by the parties in Reference (ICN) No. 17 of 1968 which was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.1 536 of 1971 was relied on in this case also. The parties requested the Court that for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in this case oral as well as documentary evidence produced in Reference (ICN) No. 17 of 1968 may also be read as evidence in this case. Therefore, in view of the decision in Special Civil Application No. 1536 of 1971 and for the reasons given therein, it will have to be held that there is no substance in this contention raised on behalf of the employer. The decision on this point given in Special Civil Application No. 1536 of 1971 will obviously therefore govern the present writ petition also. 3. The decision on this point given in Special Civil Application No. 1536 of 1971 will obviously therefore govern the present writ petition also. 3. So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, it is contended by Shri V. R. Manohar on behalf of the employer that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has committed an error in granting revision of wages and the dearness allowance and gratuity or the paid holidays to the employees. It is contended by Shri Manohar that while allowing these demands of the employees the learned Member has not taken into consideration the well recognised principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this behalf. According to Shri Manohar the revision of wages contemplated in this reference was above the level of basic minimum wage and therefore it was obligatory on the part of the learned Member to have taken into consideration the capacity of the employer to pay these revised wages. The learned Member has also not taken into consideration the pay scales prevalent in the same or similar industries in the region and, therefore, the revision of pay scale as directed by the Industrial Court is not based on "Industry-cum-Region" basis. Shri Manohar further contended that the award has been made by the Industrial Court without taking into consideration the financial capacity of the employer and as a result of this award the employer is likely to go out of the business, because it is not possible for him to bear this increased burden. He further contended that there is no material on record to indicate that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has taken into consideration the wage-structure prevalent in Photo-frame Industry in the Nagpur Region. While deciding the financial capacity of the petitioner, he has not taken into consideration the outstanding loans and has also not made any allowance for depreciation. The whole award is based on hypothetical basis and, therefore, is liable. to be set aside. In substance, therefore, it is his contention that the various findings of fact recorded by the learned Member of the Industrial Court are based on conjectures and surmises not supported by the material on record. Shri Manohar has also challenged the award of the Industrial Court framing a gratuity scheme for the employees on the various counts. In substance, therefore, it is his contention that the various findings of fact recorded by the learned Member of the Industrial Court are based on conjectures and surmises not supported by the material on record. Shri Manohar has also challenged the award of the Industrial Court framing a gratuity scheme for the employees on the various counts. However, it is not necessary to consider that aspect of the matter in view of the pursis filed by the employees before this Court on 23rd of April 1976. A statement is made on behalf of the employees in this pursis that "Since the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has come into force now the respondent No.1 does not want to press the demand of gratuity awarded in favour of the employees in this case." In substance, therefore, the said demand is not pressed by the employees and therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the said demand in this writ petition. 4. The principles for revision of the wage-structure are by now well settled. A reference in this behalf could usefully be made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Industries v. F. H. Lala1. From this decision of the Supreme Court it is quite clear that in fixing the bare minimum wage or subsistence wage, Industrial Tribunal will have to consider the position from the point of view of the worker, the capacity of the employer to pay such a wage being irrelevant. The fair wage also must take note of the economic reality of the situation and the minimum needs of the worker having a fair-sized family with an eye to the preservation of his efficiency as a worker. The wage fixation is an important subject in any social welfare programme. Wage cannot be fixed in a vacuum and has necessarily to take note of so many factors from real life a worker Jives or is reasonably expected to live. It is obvious, therefore, that the central figure in the adjudication is the wage earner who should have a fair deal in the bargain in a real sense, as far as can be without at the same time ignoring the vital interests of the industry whose liability and prosperity are also the main stay of labour. It is obvious, therefore, that the central figure in the adjudication is the wage earner who should have a fair deal in the bargain in a real sense, as far as can be without at the same time ignoring the vital interests of the industry whose liability and prosperity are also the main stay of labour. How the various competing claims have to be balanced in a given case should mainly be the function of an impartial adjudicator in an industrial proceeding, In the said decision the Supreme Court has also laid down the principles on the basis of which the fixation of wages so far as the piece-rated employees are concerned should be approached. 5. From paragraph 18 of the said judgment it is further clear that the Industrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self-contained one and it seeks to achieve social justice on the basis of collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration. Awards are given in circumstances peculiar to each dispute and the tribunals are, to a large extent, free from the restrictions of technical considerations imposed on Courts. In this context a reference could usefully be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in para. 18 of the judgment: "Piece-rate is what is paid by results or out-turn of work which is often described as a 'talk', There is greater consideration to quantity in fixing piece-rates in some particular types of work in some industries with a guaranteed minimum. The same standard may not be appropriate in al\ types of piece work. With reference to particular work the importance of man rather than the machine employed may have to be dealt with differently. Even in piece rates it will be necessary to look around to find some correlation with time rates of the same of similar class of workers, for exam pie, the contribution of the worker to the job, the nature of the work, the part played by the machine, the incentive to work and above all protection against any creation of industrial unrest because of the existence side by side of two categories of workers, particularly if there is no possibility of transfer of labour from one type of work to the other from time to time. Again there may be some work where special skill of the worker with or without machine may be necessary and that factor will have to be then considered. It will vary from industry to industry and from one process to another. No hard and fast rule can be laid down nor is it possible or helpful. The Tribunal, in an industrial adjudication, will have to liee that piece-rates do not drive workers to fatigue to the limit of exhaustion and hence will keep an eye on the time factor in work. Then again a guaranteed minimum may also have to be provided so that for no fault of a deligent worker he does not stand to lose on any account. There may be a misty penumbra which has got to be pierced through upon all available materials on record and also on what the Tribunal, in fairness, can lay its hands, with notice to the parties, for the purpose of fixing the piece rates balancing all aspects. We have only indicated broadly the bare outlines of approach in a matter so involved and sensitive as wage fixation particularly when no one at the present time can shut one's eyes to the rising spiral of prices of essential commodities. The central figure in the adjudication, however, is the wage earner who should have a fair deal in the bargain in a real sense as far as can be without at the same time ignoring the vital interests of the industry whose viability and prosperity are also the mainstay of labour. How the various competing claims have to be balanced in a given case should mainly be the function of an impartial adjudicator in an industrial proceeding unless the Legislature chooses to adopt other appropriate means and methods. Article 136 of the Constitution docs not create a right of appeal in favour of any person. It confers power on the Court which should not be so exercised as to convert the Court into a Court of appeal. "Industrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self contained one and it seeks to achieve social justice on the basis of collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration Awards are given on circumstances peculiar to each dispute and the tribunals are, to a large extent, free from the restrictions of technical considerations imposed on Courts. "Industrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self contained one and it seeks to achieve social justice on the basis of collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration Awards are given on circumstances peculiar to each dispute and the tribunals are, to a large extent, free from the restrictions of technical considerations imposed on Courts. A free and liberal exercise of the power under Article136 may materially affect the fundamental basis of such decisions, namely, quick solution to such disputes to achieve industrial peace. Though Article 136 is couched in widest terms, it is necessary for this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction only in cases where awards are made in violation of the principles of natural justice, causing substantial and grave injustice to parties or raise an important principle of industrial law requiring elucidation and final decision by this Court or disclose such other exceptional or special circumstances which merit the consideration of this Court." 6. In our opinion, the same principle would aptly apply to the present proceedings also. What is the scope of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India hall been laid down by the Supreme Court in Babhutmal v. Laxmibai2, where the Supreme Court observed as under: "The power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary is to i.e exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power, as in the case of certiorari jurisdiction, cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior Court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a Court of appeal. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a Court of appeal when the Legislature has not conferred a right or appeal and made the decision of the subordinate Court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate Court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it." Therefore, the controversy involved in this writ petition also will have to be scrutinized in this context. 7. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate Court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it." Therefore, the controversy involved in this writ petition also will have to be scrutinized in this context. 7. It is pertinent to note that in this case also, inspite of the best opportunities available to the employer, the employer has failed to enter into the witness box or adduced any evidence in support of his contention. On the other hand, the evidence has been adduced on behalf of the employees. Therefore, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the employees and the material placed on record by both the parties various findings of fact have been recorded by the Industrial Court. Before us it is Contended on behalf of the employer' that the revision of pay scale fixed by this award is in realm of the fair wage or living wage, whereas it is contended on behalf of the employees that it is within the area of subsistence wage or basic minimum wage. 8. From the award it is quite clear that a similar contention was also raised before the Industrial Court. After making a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers v. Union of India3 and other decisions of the Supreme Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Its Workman4 and Ahmedahad Millowner's Association v. Textile Labour Association5, the learned Member came to the conclusion that the revision of pay scales was called for in the present case having regard to the abnormal increase in the price of the essential commodities. The learned Member further found that in the compromise award made by the Industrial Court in 1965, the employees were given on an ad hoc basis 15 per cent of wage increase upon their total piece rate earnings and it was also agreed therein that the employees would be given adequate work which would be enough to enable them to earn at least Rs. 4 per day. The learned Member was further of the opinion that in view of the ever-increasing cost of living and the meagre wage increase which was granted by the compromise award, the increase has been fully neutralised. 4 per day. The learned Member was further of the opinion that in view of the ever-increasing cost of living and the meagre wage increase which was granted by the compromise award, the increase has been fully neutralised. It appears from the award that the learned Member has visited the factory in the presence of the parties and their counsel and had actually seen the employees at work. According to the observations of the learned Member, the employees are required to put in hard monotonous work and it was a pity to see many of them sweating. 9. It is pertinent to note that these observations are not challenged before us. It further appears that there are two other Photo-frame Factories, namely, Nagpur Picture Frame Works and Baburao Pandurang Rokade and Brothers Frame Works at Nagpur. However. references were pending for revision of pay scales regarding these factories also. Special Civil Application No. 37S of 1973 related to the factory of M/s Baburao Pandurang Rokade and Brothers and Special Civil Application No. 1598 of 1971 which was decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 18-8-1975 related to the Nagpur Picture Frame Works. We find from the judgment of this Court in the said Special Civil Application that in that case before this Court the award was not challenged on merits. 10. Then the learned Member made a reference to the evidence on record including the minimum wages fixed by the Government for the employees working on the road construction or in building operations. The learned Member also made a reference to the report of the Norms Committee published by the Government and a further reference was made to the report of the Badkas Pay Commission appointed by the State Government. Then ultimately the learned Member found that there is considerable substance in the contention raised on behalf of the employees that the wages received by them are meagre and inadequate when examined on the basis of 'Industry-cum-Region Formula', The learned Member then scrutinized the balance-sheet produced before him. He also took into consideration the prosperity of the business and found that by and large the net profits of the business were steadily increasing and, therefore, ultimately passed an award regarding the revision of wage scale and grant of dearness allowance and paid holidays. He also took into consideration the prosperity of the business and found that by and large the net profits of the business were steadily increasing and, therefore, ultimately passed an award regarding the revision of wage scale and grant of dearness allowance and paid holidays. In substance, therefore, the said award passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court is based on evidence on record. 11. We are also informed that subsequent to passing of this award in the year 1973 the minimum wages were fixed by the Government under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act for the Photo-frame Industry which will obviously include the petitioner's factory. Such minimum wages are fixed by the Government in pursuance of the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act vide Notification dated 18th September 1973. From the bare reading of this notification, it is obvious that the minimum wages fixed under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are obviously on a higher side than the ones fixed by the present award. In view of this, in our opinion, there is much substance in the contention raised by Shri Dhabe that in the present case the wages fixed are in the realm of basic minimum wage or the subsistence level wage. 12. However, it was contended by Shri Manohar that while deciding the said question the Industrial Court has not taken into consideration the 'Industry-cum-Region' principle. It is not possible for us to accept this contention. It is quite clear from the record that the references were pending in the Industrial Court regarding all the factories which were manufacturing photo frames. Obviously, therefore, the employees have adduced evidence before the Industrial Tribunal pointing out the wages in the similar concerns at Nagpur. The evidence adduced relates to the concerns at Nagpur and, therefore, it is quite clear that the Industrial Court has considered the wages in the similar concerns in the region itself. 13. Shyamrao, the wil11ess examined on behalf of the employees was a carpenter working in Jai Coolers. According to him he was getting wages at Rs. 8 per day. He further stated that there are other five carpenters engaged in the concern and their wages are 7.50 rupees per day. The duty of the carpenter is to make wooden frames for the coolers. According to him he was getting wages at Rs. 8 per day. He further stated that there are other five carpenters engaged in the concern and their wages are 7.50 rupees per day. The duty of the carpenter is to make wooden frames for the coolers. Another witness, namely, Laxman examined on behalf of the employees is employed in the Hadas High School, an educational institution at Nagpur. He is mainly engaged for the purposes of repairs to the wood work of the school building and furniture. He is working in the school since the last 14-15 years and he was also getting Rs. 8 per day. Vithoba a carpenter engaged in the Quality Furniture was also getting Rs. 7.50 per day and according in him some carpenters engaged in that industry are paid wages upto Rs. 9. He further stated that the polishmen and painters get wages at Rs. 5-50 to 7 per day. Vithoo had also worked in Janata and Bharat Furniture’s and there too he was getting Rs. 7-50 to 9 per day. There the polishmen were paid at Rs. 5 to Rs. 7 .50 per day. 14. It is pertinent to note that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the employer in this behalf. Therefore, after appreciating all the evidence on the record the learned Member came to the conclusion that basically the carpenters and the painters have to put the similar type of work and skill irrespective of the line of business in which they are engaged. He has also taken into consideration the minimum wages prevalent in the region and after taking into consideration all the material placed on record he recorded a finding of fact that the revision of pay scale was called for. If this evidence is read with the subsequent event, namely, the minimum wages fixed for this industry ill September 1973 which are higher than the wages fixed by the present award, it is quite clear to us that the wage fixed by the Industrial Tribunal is in the realm of basic minimum wage or a subsistence wage. If this is so then it is obvious that the capacity of the employer to pay the same is not relevant. As observed by the Supreme Court in M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Industries v. F. H. Lala, (cit. If this is so then it is obvious that the capacity of the employer to pay the same is not relevant. As observed by the Supreme Court in M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Industries v. F. H. Lala, (cit. supra) in fixing the minimum wage or a subsistence wage, it is the duty of the Industrial Tribunal to consider the position from the point of view of the worker, the capacity of the employer to pay such a wage being irrelevant. Even while deciding the piece-rates, it will be necessary to look around to find some correlation with time rates of the same or similar class of workers and the Tribunal in an industrial adjudication will have to see that piece-rates do not drive workers to fatigue to the limit of exhaustion and hence will keep an eye on the time factor in work. Then again a guaranteed minimum may also have to be provided so that for no fault of a diligent worker he does not stand to lose on any account. Therefore, taking an overall view of the whole matter, in our opinion, the learned Member was right in directing the revision of payscale. By this award the carpenters, polishwalas and Rollers are getting an increase of 10 paise pet bundle of frames of one inch size and below and an increase of 15 paise for each bundle of frames of sizes above one inch. The packers are getting Rs. 100 per month. The dearness allowance awarded is only Rs. 25 per month. Even if on account of revision, increased payment of wages is totalled up, it is less than the minimum wage fixed for the industry in September 1973. 15. Even otherwise, even if it is assumed that the award is beyond the realm of the basic minimum wage or subsistence wage and the capacity of the employer is relevant while deciding this question, it is well settled that, no undue stress could be laid on a balance-sheet of a year or so, but it is the overall financial position which will have to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 16. In Express Newspapers Limited v. Union of India, this aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in paragraph 73 of the said judgment and the following principles were laid down: "73. 16. In Express Newspapers Limited v. Union of India, this aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in paragraph 73 of the said judgment and the following principles were laid down: "73. The principles which emerge from the above discussion are: (1) that in the fixation of rates of wages which include within its compass the fixation of scales of wages also, the capacity of the industry to pay is one of the essential circumstances to be taken into consideration except in cases of bare subsistence or minimum wage where the employer is bound to pay the same irrespective of such capacity; (2) that the capacity of the industry to pay is to be considered on an industry-cum-region basis after taking a fair cross section of the industry, and (3) that the proper measure for gauging the capacity of the industry to pay should take into account the elasticity of demand for product, the possibility of tightening up the organisation so that the industry could pay higher wages without difficulty and the possibility of increase in the efficiency of the lowest paid workers resulting in increase in production considered in conjunction with the elasticity of demand for the product no doubt against the ultimate back-ground that the burden of the increased rate should be such as to drive the employer out of the business." From this, therefore, it is quite clear that while judging the capacity of the owner to pay, the demand for the product, the possibility of tightening up the organisation and the possibility of increase in efficiency of the lowest paid workers resulting in increase in production will have to be considered together with the elasticity of demand for the product. 17. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court, though in another context, in M/s Lipton Ltd. v. Their Employees6. 17. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court, though in another context, in M/s Lipton Ltd. v. Their Employees6. While considering the question of wages in paragraph 22, the Supreme Court; observed that- "-Wages stand on a somewhat different footing; wages primarily rest on contract and are determined on a long term basis and are not necessarily dependent on profits made in a particular year." Then in paragraph 28, it was further observed: "We have said earlier that wages do not necessarily come out of the net profits of a particular year and it cannot be said that a fair wage must inevitably be postponed till a fair return on capital is obtained. Wages are fixed on a long term basis and depend also on the cost of living and the needs of workmen” Then ultimately having regard to the facts in that case in paragraph 30 the Supreme Court found : "In our opinion, the Industrial Tribunal rightly pointed out that the moderate increase in the wage scale proposed by it would only be a very small fraction of the overall cost of Production of a packet of tea and would have very little repercussion in its price." 18. In Ahmedabad Millowners' Association v. The Textile Labour Association, after making a reference to the Express Newspapers case in paragraph 71, the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "Unusual profit made by the industry for a single year as a result of adventitious circumstances, or unusual loss incurred by it for similar reasons, should not be allowed to play a major role in the calculations which industrial adjudication would make in regard to the construction of a wage structure. A broad and overall view of the financial position of the employer must be taken into account and attempt should always be made to reconcile the natural and just claims of the employees for a fair and higher wage with the capacity of the employer to pay it, and in determining such capacity allowance must be made for a legitimate desire of the employer to make a reasonable profit. In this connection, it may also be permissible to take into account the extent of the rise in price structure which may result from the fixation of a wage structure and the reasonableness of the additional burden which may thereby be imposed upon the consumer. In this connection, it may also be permissible to take into account the extent of the rise in price structure which may result from the fixation of a wage structure and the reasonableness of the additional burden which may thereby be imposed upon the consumer. That is one aspect of the matter which is relevant." Then in paragraph 78 it was observed by the Supreme Court that- "Incidentally, it is the figure of gross profit which is more important, because it is not disputed that wages payable to the employees are a first charge and all other liabilities take their place after the wages," 19. Then again in Indian Link Chain Manufactures Ltd. v. The Workmen7, in paragraph 22 of the Supreme Court has laid down that- "In dealing with the financial capacity of an undertaking to bear the burden it would not be appropriate to approach its capacity to bear the burden from an investor's point of view, The overall picture of the soundness of the Undertaking and its future prospects must be taken into account." Therefore, it is obvious from the decisions of the Supreme Court that while deciding the financial capacity of a concern, it is the overall picture which will have to be taken into consideration. 20. However, a contention was raised by Shri Manohar that while deciding the question of financial capacity the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the outstanding loans. It is not correct to say that the Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter. So far as the secured loans are concerned, they are obviously against the pledged goods. So far as the unsecured loans are concerned, it is observed by the Industrial Tribunal that these loans are from very near relatives and from the balance-sheet it appears that no repayments were ever made towards the said loans and even the interest amount was added (0 the loan. The employer has not chosen to enter into the witness-box to place before the Industrial Court all the facts relating to its financial capacity. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the Industrial Court has committed any error in coming to the conclusion that having regard to the financial position of the employer, the employer is in a position to shoulder the increased burden arising out of the award. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the Industrial Court has committed any error in coming to the conclusion that having regard to the financial position of the employer, the employer is in a position to shoulder the increased burden arising out of the award. In our opinion, having regard to the fact that the employer has not adduced any evidence in this behalf or in relation to the quantum of depreciation claimed by him, the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to draw an adverse inference against him and record a finding in that behalf on the basis of the material placed before him. It is obvious from the Award passed by the Industrial Court that he has taken an overall view of the matter and then recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner industry will be able to shoulder the increased burden arising out of the present A ward. This finding of fact is obviously based on the evidence and material placed on record. Therefore having regard to the fact that the employer has not adduced any evidence to show his financial capacity to shoulder the burden, the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to draw an adverse inference against him and record a finding in that behalf on the basis of the material placed before it. 21. So far as the question of grant of paid holidays is concerned, they are not challenged before us. The only contention raised in this behalf was that while deciding the question of financial capacity the financial burden arising out of these paid holidays has not been considered by the learned Member. In our opinion, this contention is also not correct. So far as the question of grant of paid holidays is concerned, the preservation of the energy of a worker and a need of leisure in his life are relevant considerations for deciding this aspect. Apart from this, such paid holidays are being granted in similar industries. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Award passed in this behalf is in any way unreasonable. The burden arising out of these paid holidays is obviously meagre. Apart from this, such paid holidays are being granted in similar industries. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Award passed in this behalf is in any way unreasonable. The burden arising out of these paid holidays is obviously meagre. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, taking an overall view of the whole matter, including the minimum wages paid in Nagpur Region and the wages prevalent in similar industries, the learned Member was right in directing the revision of pay-scale in the present proceedings. As already observed even the revision of wage-scale granted by this award is below the minimum wage fixed for the industry in the year 1973. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the wages and dearness allowance granted by the present award is either unreasonable or is not warranted. In any case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, including the fact that the employer has not chosen to enter into the witness- box or to adduce any evidence in support of his contentions, in our opinion, this is not a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its extraordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Extraordinary powers of this Court are intended to be used only in an appropriate case for the purpose of keeping the subordinate Tribunals within bounds of their authority. In the present case the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principles laid down in that behalf by the highest Court of the country, has passed the impugned Award. As already observed, the wages fixed by this Award are even below the minimum wage fixed for the industry concerned. In this view of the matter, in any case, this is not a fit case wherein any interference is called for in exercise of the extraordinary powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 22. In the result, therefore, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. - .. ~ •... I