JUDGMENT : Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an Award passed by a learned Judge of the 2nd Industrial Tribunal on July 13, 2016 in Case No. VIII 01 of 2007. 2. This case arose out of an order of reference by which as an industrial dispute existed between the petitioner company and their workmen represented by West Bengal Sales Representative's Union. The primary issue involved in the order of reference was whether the demand for introduction of grade, scale of pay and annual increment of pay in respect of sales promotion employees or workmen of the petitioner company was justified. 3. By the Award, the learned Judge of the Tribunal held that the introduction of scale of pay, annual increment in respect of sales promotion employees of the company was justified and he observed that the company should introduce scale of pay, annual increment in respect of sales promotion employees or workmen of the company under reference. 4. Naturally the company is not very happy with the Award and wanted to test it by way of this writ petition upon various grounds none of which at the end appears to be convincing enough to admit the writ petition. 5. The only question involved in the present writ petition is whether the learned Judge of the Tribunal in adjudicating the issue had correctly applied the law or failed to address itself to the issues involved therein. 6. I have gone though the Award and found nothing wrong either in the Award or in the approach of the Tribunal calling for a judicial intervention. 7. Mr. De, the learned advocate for the petitioner company wanted to assail the order primarily in the name of its policy decision. According to him, introducing of a grade pay or scale of pay is against the policy decision of the company and as such, the Tribunal cannot impose its own decision upon the petitioner herein. It was never in vogue in the company after its bifurcation from the Cadila Laboratory Limited. But it is only because it was never there that the question of introducing the scheme was relevant. Had the company been following such thing there may not have been any question of fresh introduction. 8. I have gone through the evidence adduced in connection with the case. But it is only because it was never there that the question of introducing the scheme was relevant. Had the company been following such thing there may not have been any question of fresh introduction. 8. I have gone through the evidence adduced in connection with the case. I do not find any part of the evidence was either improperly left out or anything has been added which was not said by the witnesses. 9. P.W. 1 who is a member of the All West Bengal Sales Representative's Union and a workman in the petitioner company, specifically stated that while working in Cadila Laboratory Limited they were getting the benefit of scale of pay, gradation and annual increment but Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. born out of the former company, had not been paying the same. This assertion goes un-controverted. A very detailed cross-examination could neither shake the credibility of the P.Ws. 1 & 2 nor could it throw out the statements made in the examination-in-chief. That grade and scale of pay were never paid by the petitioner company has also been fairly accepted by the O.P.W. 1 in his affidavit-in-chief. In the cross-examination, O.P.W. 1 had candidly admitted that when the sales promotion employees of the Cadila Laboratory Limited became the employees of the petitioner company the management did not intimate them expressly that their scale of pay, grade and annual increment which were in existence would not be followed by the new management nor did the management intimate them that their increment would be on basis of their performance of work as per the policy of the management of the company. 10. The learned Judge of the Tribunal had taken the evidence into consideration in details and examined the same in respect of their impact upon the merits of the case. 10. The learned Judge of the Tribunal had taken the evidence into consideration in details and examined the same in respect of their impact upon the merits of the case. He had rightly placed reliance on the case of Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen and Others, reported in 1959-II L.L.J. 826 wherein it was specifically held by a three-Judge Bench that it cannot be forgotten that industrial adjudication is based, in this country at least, on what is known as industry-cum-region basis and cases may arise where it may be necessary in following the principle to make changes even where the conditions of service of all-India concern are uniform, the tribunal cannot abstain from seeking that fair conditions of service prevail in the industry with which it is concerned. If any scheme which may be uniformly in force throughout India in the case of an all-India concern, appears to be unfair and not in accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters it would be the duty of the tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make out fair and to bring it into line with the prevailing conditions in such matters, particularly in the region in which the tribunal is functioning irrespective of the fact that the demand is made by only a small minority of the workmen employed in one place out of the many where the all-India concern carries on business. 11. The judgment mentioned above has been rightly relied on by the Tribunal in the present case in its right perspective. 12. Mr. De submitted that since the petitioner company is an all-India concern, it may not be possible for them to implement it on a national basis without incurring substantial financial implication. 13. That by itself may not be a deterrent for a Tribunal not to direct the company to introduce certain benefits merely because for an all-India company financial implication will be heavier than that of a company operating on a regional basis. It cannot be glossed over that a company having countrywide sales and offices will have a much larger annual turnover than a small company operating at a micro level. Therefore, this argument on the face of it cannot be taken beyond a certain point. 14. It cannot be glossed over that a company having countrywide sales and offices will have a much larger annual turnover than a small company operating at a micro level. Therefore, this argument on the face of it cannot be taken beyond a certain point. 14. It cannot also be disputed that this country is close to completing seven decades after its independence and industrial growth cannot be said to be in a tardy condition' which it was in 1950s. Therefore, the conditions which weighed in the past by gone decades for ensuring an un-retarded industrial progress and not allowing a certain Award to be sustained on the ground that it might halter the national economy. This shall not apply to a very different economic situation of the present day. Even in 1950s, it was accepted as a recognized thought process in the matter of industrial adjudication that industrial arbitration might involve the making of a new contract or examination of new obligations on the employer in the interest of social justice which is not a static one. 15. Ludwig Teller once observed in his celebrated treatise 'Labour Disputes and Collective Bargaining' that industrial arbitration may involve the making of a new agreement or creation of new obligations or modification of old ones. That had been accepted theoretically by the Supreme Court in the case of Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union, reported in 1959-II L.L.J. 366 that in appropriate cases industrial adjudication may impose new obligations on the employer in the interest of social justice and with the object of securing peace and harmony between the employer and his workman and full cooperation between them. The observation made by Mahajan, J., in the case of Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal Bombay, reported in 1949 L.L.J. 245 that an award of the tribunal may contain provisions for the settlement of a dispute which no Court could order if it was bound by ordinary law, but the tribunal is not fettered in any way by these limitations. Again in the case of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi reported in 1950 L.L.J. 921, the Supreme Court had occasion to observe that in settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. Again in the case of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi reported in 1950 L.L.J. 921, the Supreme Court had occasion to observe that in settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It was observed "it has not merely to interpret or to give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace." 16. There is no point in multiplying the decisions on the point. As the power of the Tribunal including the scope of its interference has over the decades been fairly well settled and recognized. And this is precisely what the Tribunal in the present case had done. It has taken into consideration the conspectus of case and the points evolving there from to appreciate the issues in their proper legal context and to pass an Award which appeared, as it also appears to me, to be fair and just. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has also strongly relied on the Rule 22(1) of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976 which says that the letter of appointment is to be furnished to a sales promotion employee under section 5 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 in Form A. The learned Judge of the Tribunal had rightly observed that in the letter of appointment, it has been mentioned that there is basic pay, annual increment and other benefits. Therefore, on the basis of the Act mentioned above, each sales promotion employee is entitled to get scale of pay, annual increment and other benefits. 17. Thus, I find nothing to interfere in the order impugned. The reasoning is coherent and connected with each other in a logical manner and the ratiocination followed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal fairly proximates the logic and well settled principles of law. 18. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. The reasoning is coherent and connected with each other in a logical manner and the ratiocination followed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal fairly proximates the logic and well settled principles of law. 18. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.