JUDGMENT : 1. As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society [Hantex] is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2302/2016, whereas, the General Secretary, Handloom Weavers Pensioners Welfare Association, a Trade Union representing the retired workers of the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.5074/2016. Both these writ petitions impugn the award dated 25.6.2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, in I.D.No.18/1999, that was passed pursuant to the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 24.3.2014 in W.P.(C).No.31992/2004. The brief facts which led to the passing of the award are as follows: 3. At the instance of the Trade Union that had raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, claiming regular scales of pay in respect of workmen in the category of Tailors, Helpers, Designers and Part Time Sweepers, conciliation talks were initiated by the Labour Officer. On the conciliation steps having failed, a failure report was submitted before the State Government, and the State Government thereafter referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. The Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, considered the following issues for adjudication: 1. Whether the employees of garment unit are eligible for time scale of pay? 2. Whether the employees are eligible for enhanced rate of Rs.3/- per point against the existing rate of Rs.1.80/-? 3. Whether the employees are eligible for weight age of Rs.10/-per year after completion of 5 years of service? 4. Whether the tailors and helpers are eligible for grade in the ratio of 1:1? 5. Whether the employees of garment unit are eligible for House Rent Allowance enjoyed by employees of Hantex? 6. Whether the employees of garment unit are eligible for 20 days casual leave? 7. Whether the employees are eligible for 3 late attendances in a month? 8. Whether the employees of garment unit are eligible for Welfare Fund as implemented in Hantex? 9. Whether the employees are eligible for 1 hour interval? 4. The Tribunal, after an adjudication process, found in favour of the workers on all the nine issues, except Grade, and accordingly, directed the petitioner Society to implement the award immediately. Aggrieved by the said award of the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner Society came up before this Court in W.P.(C).No.31922/2004, impugning the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, after an adjudication process, found in favour of the workers on all the nine issues, except Grade, and accordingly, directed the petitioner Society to implement the award immediately. Aggrieved by the said award of the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner Society came up before this Court in W.P.(C).No.31922/2004, impugning the award of the Industrial Tribunal. By Ext.P10 judgment, this Court upheld the award on most of the issues, but then found that there was no clarity with regard to the scale of pay that had to be fixed in respect of the employees comprising of tailors and helpers in the garment unit of the petitioner Society. The said finding was entered in the wake of the specific finding in the industrial award, that was impugned before this Court, that the tailors and helpers of the garment unit of the petitioner Society were entitled to a scale of pay, without specifying what that scale of pay had to be. This Court, in Ext.P10 judgment, therefore, found as follows: “9. But, for a finding that the employees of the garment unit are eligible for regular scale of pay, the Tribunal has not examined as to what would be the comparable scale of pay which should be made applicable to each categories of employees. Neither the management nor the representative unions have taken the trouble of adducing evidence, before the Tribunal, as to the different scales of pay enjoyed by the regular employees of the management and the work; such employees were carrying on, in the management society. Again, it cannot but be noticed that, despite the representative Unions having raised the specific contention with respect to the employees in the very same category having been fixed in regular scales of pay in one another Unit of the management, being one located at Balaramapuram; no evidence is adduced with respect to the scales of pay or the work carried on by such employees in the said unit of the management. 10. What is to be first considered in the writ petition, is whether the claim of the employees of the garment unit, for a regular scale of pay, is valid or not. Though the management society contends that these employees were engaged on piece-rate basis, it is an admitted fact that their emoluments included basic pay, variable D.A as also weight age for service. Though the management society contends that these employees were engaged on piece-rate basis, it is an admitted fact that their emoluments included basic pay, variable D.A as also weight age for service. In the circumstance of the employees having been fixed in a regular pay having basic pay, variable D.A as also the weight age for service; their claim to be fixed in the regular band of pay with increments in yearly intervals is only appropriate. This would be more so, since it has been brought on record and admitted by the management that, other category of employees employed in the very same unit, have been fixed in regular scales of pay. Otherwise, it would lead to hostile discrimination insofar as the employees of the very same establishment being paid salaries, computed in grossly different modes. The skilled workers who were before the Tribunal, admittedly were drawing gross emoluments far lower to that of the last grade employees fixed in regular time-scale of pay. 11. In such circumstance, the award of the Tribunal insofar as it upheld the claim of the employees of the garment unit, for a regular scale of pay is to be sustained. However, it is to be noticed that it is not clear from the award or from the claim petition, as to which is the scale of pay, which would be entitled to those categories, who have been denied such scales of pay. The four categories of employees-Tailors, helpers, designers and part-time sweepers who have been denied regular scales of pay have to be necessarily fixed in a time-scale of pay, in which either comparable work is done by regular employees or a pay-band found out within the categories of employees who are drawing such regular scales of pay. 12. In spite of the compulsive plea of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that, a remand at this stage, would only further delay the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no other alternative. A mere upholding of Ext.P7 award would not ennure to the benefit of the employees, since a regular scale of pay, to each category of the employees have to be fixed. That has not been done by the Tribunal, which has to take evidence and find comparable work to determine the scales of pay or equate work in a manner which would facilitate such fixation. That has not been done by the Tribunal, which has to take evidence and find comparable work to determine the scales of pay or equate work in a manner which would facilitate such fixation. Hence, necessarily, the issue would have to be remanded for a fresh consideration before the Industrial Tribunal Kollam, but restricted to the extent of determining a suitable time-scale as applicable to other employees.” 5. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, as noted above, the matter was once again considered by the Industrial Tribunal, and by Ext.P12 award, that is impugned in these writ petitions, the Tribunal found that the scales of pay of Tailors could be fixed at Rs.3,350–5,275/-, Rs.4,000–6,090/-, depending upon whether the Tailor in question had completed five years of experience under the Society or not. The persons who had completed five years of experience would be categorised in the scale of pay applicable to skilled workers, and those without five years experience would be categorised in the scale of pay applicable to semi skilled workers. Similarly, in the case of Helpers, the scale of pay was fixed at Rs.3,050–5,230/- and Rs.3,350–5,275/-, depending on whether or not the Helper in question had more than five years of experience under the management or not. In the case of those having more than five years experience, they would be treated as the same scale of pay as applicable to semi skilled workers, and those without five years of experience would be treated as eligible for a scale of pay applicable to unskilled workers. It was further clarified that Tailors, who are engaged as Cutting masters in the unit would be entitled to get the scale of pay of Cutting master, and the benefits of the new scales of pay fixed were to be made effective from 4.6.2004, the date of the first award passed by the Tribunal, which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C).No.31922/2004. As already noted, Ext.P12 award of the Industrial Tribunal has been impugned in all these writ petitions, one preferred by the Management and the other by a Trade Union. 6. In W.P.(C).No.2302/2016 filed by the Society, the challenge against Ext.P12 award is essentially with regard to the fixation of the pay scales which were ultimately found applicable to Tailors and Helpers in the garment unit of the petitioner Society. 6. In W.P.(C).No.2302/2016 filed by the Society, the challenge against Ext.P12 award is essentially with regard to the fixation of the pay scales which were ultimately found applicable to Tailors and Helpers in the garment unit of the petitioner Society. The learned counsel for the petitioner Society would contend that in the garment unit at Wayanad, Tailors and Helpers were being paid according to a pay scale, and the petitioner Society had no objection to granting a similar pay scale to the Tailors and Helpers in the other units of the Society. It is stated that the Industrial Tribunal ignored the said pay scales that were offered to Tailors and Helpers in the Wayanad unit, and deemed it fit to apply the pay scales applicable to skilled/semi skilled/unskilled workers, while extending a pay scale to Tailors and Helpers in the garment unit of the petitioner Society. It is pointed out that the nature of the work undertaken by the Tailors in the garment unit is more or less similar to the work that was undertaken by Tailors and Helpers in the Wayanad unit, and, therefore, the scales of pay applicable to the said latter unit ought to have been made applicable to similar workers in the garment unit. As regards the Tailors and Helpers in other units of the petitioner Society such as Pappanamcode and Balaramapuram, it is stated that there is no comparison with the work done by the Tailors/Helpers of those units, and the similar workmen of the garment unit, and, therefore, the said pay scales of Tailors and Helpers in those units could not, at any rate, be extended to the workers in the garment unit. In W.P.(C).No.5074/2016, the contention of the petitioner Trade Union is essentially that the impugned award of the Tribunal went wrong in confining the date, from which the benefits were to accrue to the workmen, as 4.6.2004. It is stated that the benefits should have been extended to the workmen at least from the date of the reference, and not extending it from the earlier date would prejudice those workers who had retired from the services of the management prior to 4.6.2004. 7. I have heard the Sri. T.M.Raman Kartha and Sri. M.Sreekumar, the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions as also Sri. 7. I have heard the Sri. T.M.Raman Kartha and Sri. M.Sreekumar, the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions as also Sri. Mathew George Vadakkeyil, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 8. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from a perusal of the award dated 25.6.2015 of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, that is impugned in these writ petitions that, pursuant to the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 24.3.2014, the Tribunal examined, at length, the evidence that was adduced before it, to show the pay scales which were extended to workers who were similarly placed as those in the garment unit of the management Society. On a consideration of the documents produced, the Tribunal found that, while the financial condition of the management Society was not such as would enable it to extend the same scales of pay, as were being extended to Tailors and Helpers in Pappanamcode and Balaramapuram units, to the workers in the garment unit of the Society, the nature of the work done by skilled/semi skilled and unskilled workers in the other units of the management society was similar to those done by the Tailors and Helpers in the garment unit. In particular, the Tribunal finds as follows while dealing with the similarity in the nature of work of the workers in question: “.............. Admittedly, the factory of the management is a manufacturing unit and the tailors are doing the core function in he production of garments. The management does not have any case that a person without having any expertise in the field of stitching can carry out the job of tailor. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the work of a tailor does not involve any proficiency, expertise etc.. Therefore on the evidence made available, I am of the view that the work of a tailor is a skilled job. The unions do not have any case that the helpers have joined in the service of the management with any experience or skill. But it is the case of the unions that by passage of time they acquire skill in their work. As per exhibit W4, the scales of pay given for skilled workers with effect from 1992 and 1997 are 1200-2040 and 4000-6090 respectively. But it is the case of the unions that by passage of time they acquire skill in their work. As per exhibit W4, the scales of pay given for skilled workers with effect from 1992 and 1997 are 1200-2040 and 4000-6090 respectively. It is already found that nothing is stated in exhibit W4 that it is confined only to the workers in the Hantex Process House as contended by the management. There is no doubt that the financial position of the management society shows a dismal picture. But exhibits M4 series audit certificates would show that they are combined audit reports and balance sheets consisting of the accounts of all the units under the management. The profit and loss of the units under the management is not separately given I the audit report. The management does not have any specific case that some of their units are running on profit and the scale of pay of the workers in such units are fixed on account of the performance of that particular unit. Another aspect to be considered is that when the Government referred the present dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal, there were more than 40 tailors and helpers in the garment unit and now it has come down to below 20. Therefore, the management may not be seriously overburdened with payment of additional salary to the tailors and helpers on the fixation of scales of pay by the Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the tailors who have got a minimum of five years experience in the management's manufacturing unit as on the date of effect given below shall be given the scale of pay applicable to the skilled workers mentioned in exhibit W4 and those who have not completed 5 years experience shall be placed in the scale of pay applicable to the semi skilled workers in exhibit W4. The tailors who complete 5 years experience in their post shall be given the scale of skilled workers. As regards the helpers who have got a minimum of five year service under the management shall be given the scale of pay applicable to the semi skilled workers mentioned in exhibit W4 and those who have not completed 5 years shall be placed in the scale of pay given to the unskilled workers in Exhibit W4. As regards the helpers who have got a minimum of five year service under the management shall be given the scale of pay applicable to the semi skilled workers mentioned in exhibit W4 and those who have not completed 5 years shall be placed in the scale of pay given to the unskilled workers in Exhibit W4. The tailors who undertake the work of cutting master is eligible to get the scale of pay of cutting master. The dispute was referred by the Government for adjudication vide order dated 15.12.1998. For the last around 17 years, the unions and the management have been engaged in the present litigation. The 5th union representing the pensioners of the managements garment unit would contend that at the time of reference of the dispute, their members were in the service of the management and all of them are retired now and the date of effect of fixation of scale of pay shall be from the date of reference of the dispute so that the retired hands would get the benefit of the same. It has come out in evidence that the financial position of the management society is in doldrums. Of course, it may due to a variety of reasons other than the labour related issues. However, continuous functioning of the management's factory is essential for the livelihood of the workers employed therein. Therefore, a pragmatic view is to be taken regarding the date of implementation of pay scales in consideration of the financial position of the management. Considering the totality of facts of the case and hearing the learned counsels for the unions and the management, I am of the view that the new scales of pay fixed hereunder shall be made effective from the date of first award of this Tribunal ie., 04.06.2004. In the result, an award is passed as follows. 1. Scales of pay of tailors and helpers are fixed as hereunder. Sl. No. Category Scale of Pay 1. Tailor 3350-5275 2. Tailor who has completed 5 years of experience in the management's factory as a tailor as on 04.06.2004 4000-6090 3. Tailor who has completed/completes 5 years of experience in his job in the factory of the management after 04.06.2004. 4000-6090 4. Helper 3050-5230 5. Helpers who have completed 5 years experience as a helper in the factory of the management as on 4.06.2004. 3350-5250 6. Tailor who has completed/completes 5 years of experience in his job in the factory of the management after 04.06.2004. 4000-6090 4. Helper 3050-5230 5. Helpers who have completed 5 years experience as a helper in the factory of the management as on 4.06.2004. 3350-5250 6. Helper who has completed/completes experience in his job in the factory of the management after 04.06.2004. 3350-5275 2. The tailors who are engaged as cutting mastes in the unit are entitled to get the scale of pay of cutting master. 3. The management shall revise the scales of pay given above as and when a revision of pay scales of other workers is taken place. 4. The management shall pay arrears of salary to the workers giving priority to the retired hands if any. Considering the financial position of the management, they are permitted to disburse the arrears of salary in two instalments within a period of one year ie., one instalment each on every 6 months. Thus, the direction given by the Honourable High Court in W.P.(C).No.31922 of 2004(A) dated24.03.2014 is complied with. 9. It is apparent from a perusal of the reasoning of the Tribunal in the industrial award that, the Tribunal, after taking note of the financial condition of the petitioner Society, arrived at a practical solution with regard to the extension of pay scales to Tailors ad Helpers in the garment unit of the management Society. The analogy with skilled/semi skilled/unskilled workers was the only available option to the Industrial Tribunal, for the purposes of comparison between two sets of employees working in two different units, where the work discharged by them, although, not identical, was similar. 10. As regards the challenge of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.5074/2016, against the finding in the impugned award that the benefits should take effect from 4.6.2004, I find that the date 4.6.2004 was fixed since that was the date of the first award passed by the Tribunal, which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C).No.31922/2004. 10. As regards the challenge of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.5074/2016, against the finding in the impugned award that the benefits should take effect from 4.6.2004, I find that the date 4.6.2004 was fixed since that was the date of the first award passed by the Tribunal, which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C).No.31922/2004. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Trade Union did not challenge the earlier award passed by the Tribunal, and the contention with regard to applicability of the benefits with retrospective date beyond 4.6.2004, is premised only on the observations made by this Court in the judgment referred above, giving liberty to the Industrial Tribunal to fix the date from which the pay scales would be applicable while deciding the point that was referred to it for adjudication. I am of the view that the observations of this Court in the judgment referred above, can only be seen as giving liberty to the Tribunal to fix a date prospective to 4.6.2004, while deciding the date from which the benefits were to be extended to the workers in question. Inasmuch as, in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded the benefits with effect from 4.6.2004 itself, I see no reason for the petitioner Trade Union to be aggrieved against the said finding of the Tribunal. On an overall consideration of the reasoning of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the award of the Tribunal does not call for any interference from this Court in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions, in their challenge against the said award, fail, and are accordingly dismissed.