JUDGMENT : Sunita Agarwal, CJ. 1. These two petitions are directed against the award dated 02.09.2016 in Reference (IT) No.180 of 2011. One of the writ petitions (Special Civil Application No.18690 of 2016) has been filed with the prayer to quash the award insofar as issues No.3,7,8,10,11,13,14,15 and 17 are concerned, to modify the award insofar as the issues No.2,5,6 and 9 are concerned and resultantly confirm the award on issues No.1,4,12,16,18 and 19. In the second writ petition, the challenge is by the union, namely Gujarat Industrial Security Force (Karmachari Union) to the award pressing the demands, not acceded to by the Industrial Tribunal. We may note, at the outset, that not much has been argued about the claim/demands of the petitioner union in this writ petition on behalf of the workmen. 2. Both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgement. It may be noted that for convenience and uniformity, reference to the petitioner society and respondent union is with reference to the parties in Special Civil Application No.18690 of 2016 in the entire body of the judgement. The relevant facts of the case are that the facts Reference I.T.No.180 of 2011 was registered on the demand raised by the worker’s union for wage revision and other benefits admissible to a workman. The members of the respondent union, workmen are security guards employed by the petitioner namely the Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society (in short as “the GISFS”), which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act. It is an organization, which recruits and provides security guards to various Government, non Government, Semi-Government establishments and private organizations. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is registered as ‘private security agency’ under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The Secretary, Home Department is an ex officio Chairman of the petitioner society. It is, categorically stated that the petitioner society does not receive any grant or financial assistance from the State Government and the workmen employed as security guards/ watchmen under the petitioner society are not the Government employees. The Governing body of the petitioner society takes policy decision for which no approval is needed from the State Government. 4. It is, categorically stated that the petitioner society does not receive any grant or financial assistance from the State Government and the workmen employed as security guards/ watchmen under the petitioner society are not the Government employees. The Governing body of the petitioner society takes policy decision for which no approval is needed from the State Government. 4. As per the Government policy, the petitioner society pays minimum wages fixed and all other required benefits to its workmen who worked as security guards and security sub-inspectors under the contract executed with the parent institution (Principal employer). 5. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner society does not have any independent source of income and the payment is made as per the contract entered into, by the Principal employer with the petitioner society. It is urged that the petitioner society sought opinion from the Principal employers in respect of the increase in the wages of its workmen, but they all have denied and replied that in case there is an increase of financial burden, they may discontinue with the services of the petitioners. 6. It was argued that as a result of the award, the petitioner society would have to incur additional financial burden of Rs.2,367/- per month per security guard and the total employees being approximately 4,800, the total increase in the cost per month would be Rs.1.13 crores, approximately, which would result in additional financial burden of Rs.13.63 crores annually. 7. Considering the financial condition of the petitioner society, it is not possible to incur any additional cost as directed by the Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award. It was vehemently argued that primarily due to its financial condition, the petitioner society is challenging the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 8. Apart from the above, other grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners to assail the benefits granted by the Tribunal are that the Tribunal has committed illegality in drawing parity with the Government employees on the Principle of equal pay for equal work. The petitioner society works on No profit No loss basis and being a Non-profit organization, it cannot be saddled with additional financial liability. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the labour laws benefits were already being given to the workmen. The petitioner society works on No profit No loss basis and being a Non-profit organization, it cannot be saddled with additional financial liability. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the labour laws benefits were already being given to the workmen. The direction to pay of Rs.1000/- to the employees at the time of transfer and posting is without rationale, inasmuch as, the transfer is an incidence of service condition and there cannot be any restriction on it. Moreover, payment of Rs.1000/- can only be made in the case of transfer in a routine case made by the employer and not in the case of disciplinary action or as a result of some complaint. 9. On overtime and working hours, the Tribunal has erred in holding that normal work hours would be eight (08) hours and, if any work is taken beyond that period, then double overtime payment is required to be made. It is submitted that half an hour recess is given to and generally if a workman works for more than eight hours, overtime payment is being given, however, the payment of double over-time is highly irrational. 10. Insofar as ESI is concerned, out of 563 institutions where the petitioner society provides services, at 370 places, ESI is implemented and benefit thereof is extended to the workman. However, in remaining 227 places which are beyond the purview of ESI, financial assistance is provided from the welfare fund for the workmen to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and upto Rs.3,00,000/- for family members where workmen had died during the course of employment. 11. There is a challenge to the directions contained in the award for issuance of new posting order, when point of posting is closed down within the period of three days, and to make payment of regular salary till new posting order at new place is passed by the petitioner society. It is contended that only in case of availability of vacancy at the alternative place, it would be possible for the petitioner society to accommodate the workman laid on account of closure of the point of posting. The Tribunal has erred in ignoring that in absence of work it would not be possible for the petitioner society to make payment, amounting to continuity of service. 12. The Tribunal has erred in ignoring that in absence of work it would not be possible for the petitioner society to make payment, amounting to continuity of service. 12. It was urged that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the age of retirement as 60 years, though as per Section 10(b) of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (in short as “the Security Act’ 2005”), no person can be employed beyond 65 years as security guard. It is argued that the aspect of age of recruitment upto 65 years as per the Security Act’ 2005 has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. 13. As regards the conveyance allowance of Rs.500/- per month awarded to the workmen, it was argued that when the workmen are paid minimum wages, they have no right to get conveyance expenses or any other expenses, likely to be incurred by the workmen and the said allowance is neither statutory nor a legal right of the workmen. On the aspect of enhancement in the wages, it was urged that financial capacity of the employer is an important factor when additional expenditure is to be incurred. The Tribunal has given directions, which may have an effect of closing the industry. 14. Taking note of the above, we may take note of the benefits accorded by the Tribunal to the workmen while allowing the reference, partly, which are as follows:- “1) Each of the workmen serving in the organization should be paid an mount of Rs.1,500 per month increase in pay, Rs.100 per month of washing allowance, conveyance allowance at Rs.500 per month in addition to the amount of Rs.500 payable as interim relief. (2) Double overtime shall be paid to all the workmen if work is obtained for more than eight hours from them. (3) Each of the workmen should be provided with a raincoat every five years. (4) All the workmen should be taken under the ESI Act provisions. (5) The transfer of workmen outside district shall be undertaken by the organization in exceptional cases only. In exception to voluntary demand by the workmen, in case if the transfer is outside the district, the amount of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) shall be paid by the organization to the workmen as an additional amount. (5) The transfer of workmen outside district shall be undertaken by the organization in exceptional cases only. In exception to voluntary demand by the workmen, in case if the transfer is outside the district, the amount of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) shall be paid by the organization to the workmen as an additional amount. (6) The organization shall provide the letter informing the workmen as to new point within 3 days and the workmen shall mark his presence on the new point, as per the order, within 3 days. (7) The workmen named under the Annexure I should contract the organization for the purpose of obtaining posting and the organization should provide the posting order so as to keep them present on duty. (8) The organization should retire the workmen in 60 years. The organization can recruit any retired person on administrative post in the organization. (9) The sincere senior ‘workmen, having no complaint or dissatisfaction against their work, should be employed on the post like RTO, Sales tax check post, etc. (10) The workmen that have filed criminal case, as a part of their duty, to be provided paid leave at the time of remaining present before the Court for proceedings. (11) At the time of recruitment of security sub-inspector, the 50% vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment while the other 50% to be filled through the promotion of the senior workmen employed as security guard in the organization. (12) The union in which the workmen of the organization are members and the union has 30% of the members from the workmen of the organization, to be recognized for a period of two years. One representative of the union to be provided with paid leaves of 10 days per annum by the organization, for the purpose of remaining present for the working of the union. The amount of Rs.2,500 per month to be paid to each of the recognized union, upon the submissions of previous two years audited accounts by the union.” 15. The aforesaid benefits have been granted to the workmen with effect from the date of the judgement, i.e 02.09.2016 and the direction is that all the above benefits be accorded to the workmen within 30 days of the passing of the judgement/award. 16. The aforesaid benefits have been granted to the workmen with effect from the date of the judgement, i.e 02.09.2016 and the direction is that all the above benefits be accorded to the workmen within 30 days of the passing of the judgement/award. 16. In addition to the above, an amount of Rs.5000/- was directed to be paid towards the cost to the respondent union (of the workmen). It is pertinent to record, at this juncture, that the petitioner is in clear defiance of the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as, inspite of no interim order having been in the present petition staying execution of the award, the benefits granted to the workmen have not been accorded till date. 17. We may record that at the time of issuance of Rule, vide order dated 14.03.2017, no interim order was passed and the petitioner was given liberty to move appropriate application for expediting the hearing of the matter after all the respondents were served. The matter was being listed, thereafter, but has not been argued nor any interim order has been passed later. 18. In essence, three financial benefits have been granted by the Tribunal under the impugned award which are that the petitioner society shall pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month increase in pay, Rs.100/- per month of washing allowance, conveyance allowance of Rs.500 per month, with the direction that the above noted amount of Rs.500/- per month would be paid in addition to the amount of Rs.500/- payable to the workmen under the interim order during the pendency of the reference. The other benefits accorded as noted above, would not cause any extra financial burden upon the petitioner society, as they are contingent. Moreover, pertinent is to note that the petitioner society is a service provider and the payment towards increase in pay is to be made good by the respective Principal employer, which are mostly various departments of the State Government, local bodies etc. 19. As regards the benefit of ESI, it may be noted that the Tribunal, after consideration of the deposition of the petitioner’s witnesses at Exh.199, in the cross examination, has noted that the benefit of ESI is to be provided at the places where the ESI is applicable and the main office of the organization is at Ahmedabad. 19. As regards the benefit of ESI, it may be noted that the Tribunal, after consideration of the deposition of the petitioner’s witnesses at Exh.199, in the cross examination, has noted that the benefit of ESI is to be provided at the places where the ESI is applicable and the main office of the organization is at Ahmedabad. The area is under the ESI Act and further it was found that part of the ESI was deducted from the wages of all the workmen. The ESI Act being a beneficial law, the workmen are to be provided the benefits at the relevant point of time. The petitioner organization since deals with various employers from its Ahmedabad. Head office, it would be proper to take note of the fact that the organization itself is covered by the ESI Act, its Head office being located at Ahmedabad and, therefore, is mandated to comply with the ESI Act for all its workmen. 20. Further, the increase in wages to an amount of Rs.1500/- per month with effect from 02.09.2016 cannot be said to be excessive or irrational. Moreover, no material has been placed before us apart from some communications from the Principal employers which are essentially Government institutions that they have refused to increase wages on the plea that they cannot bear the financial burden. 21. It may be noted that the petitioner society, namely the GISFS has been raised under the aegis of the Government of Gujarat as a society. As is evident from the certificate dated 18.12.2002 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department and the Chairman, Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society, at page 569 of the paper book of Special Civil Application No. 5263 of 2017, the petitioner society had been initially given the status of a Government organization financed and sponsored by the Government of Gujarat to provide security cover to Government, private industries, Boards and Corporations located in the State of Gujarat. The personnel of the security force were recruited and trained by the Gujarat State police. From the brochure of the petitioner society, under the heading “A Key Need”, it may be noted that GISFS is a registered society set up by the Government of Gujarat, with the objective of creating greater vigilance infrastructure to safeguard public and private industrial establishments. The personnel of the security force were recruited and trained by the Gujarat State police. From the brochure of the petitioner society, under the heading “A Key Need”, it may be noted that GISFS is a registered society set up by the Government of Gujarat, with the objective of creating greater vigilance infrastructure to safeguard public and private industrial establishments. It was conveyed that for providing trained, reliable and efficient force of security guards, the Government has installed Security Bank which will also provide employment to the youth of Gujarat. 22. A perusal of the communication dated 04.10.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Gujarat to the Managing Director, Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation Limited, further indicates that while making request to consider the use of the organization, namely GISFS for hiring security services, it was intimated therein that the Government of Gujarat vide Government Resolution 03.07.1997 of Industries and Mines Department had decided to create the society (GISFS) under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for providing security services to various State and Central Government undertakings. It further states that vide Government Resolution dated 11.12.2003 of the Industries and Mines Department, it was directed by the State Government that all the Government of Gujarat offices, Semi-Government offices, Government Hospitals/dispensaries, Government controlled undertakings, Corporations, Boards, grant-in-aid organizations etc. should deploy security personnel of GISFS for security services. It was further mentioned therein that job is given to GISFS without inviting tender and the main objective is to give employment to the unemployed youth of Gujarat on No profit No loss basis. It records that the society (GISFS) has a governing body which consists of Secretary (Home), Secretary/ Principal Secretary (Expenditure) Finance Department, Commandant General, Home Guards, Principal, Police Training College and General Manager Grade-I (E & A) Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. It was further noted that the society ensures payment of minimum wages and other statutory obligations like GPF, ESIC etc., which are also sought to be ensured by the Parliament with the enactment of the Security Act’ 2005. 23. We may also refer to the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2003 issued with reference to the Government Resolution dated 03.07.1997 by the Industries and Mines Department, Government of Gujarat, in the matter of obtaining services of GISFS in different Government offices of the Gujarat State, Boards, Corporations and organizations getting grant-in-aid etc. 23. We may also refer to the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2003 issued with reference to the Government Resolution dated 03.07.1997 by the Industries and Mines Department, Government of Gujarat, in the matter of obtaining services of GISFS in different Government offices of the Gujarat State, Boards, Corporations and organizations getting grant-in-aid etc. Preface of the said Resolution states that formation of GISFS was made by the Circular dated 03.07.1997 with a good intention for providing security for trained soldiers in industrial units, Government, Semi-Government offices, Boards, Corporations etc. 24. It further contemplates issuance of a circular giving following instructions:- “CIRCULAR:- Government, after careful consideration, has prescribed following instructions. (1) Services of Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society only shall be taken for management of services of security and safety in different government offices, semi-government offices, government hospitals and dispensaries, boards, corporations and different organizations getting grant-in-aid etc. (2) The said services shall be obtained as per the rates prescribed from time to time by the society without calling for any tenders. Of course, GISFS shall require providing quality services at reasonable rate and making all the necessary efforts and measures in that respect. Moreover, GISFS shall get approved the rates by the governing body and recover the rates accordingly. (3) GISFS shall require providing such services at the possible reasonable rates and without breaking any concerned labour laws. (4) All concerned shall require to strictly implementing this circular with immediate effect. Home Department, Labour and Employment Department and Finance Department have been consulted in this respect.” 25. From the reading of these documents, it is evident that specialized force for the purpose of security services has been created to provide trained security personnel to various Government organizations, with whom the petitioner society engages. The payment to individual security personnel deployed by the petitioner society is made from the amount provided by the Principal employer for hiring its services. The security personnels are trained disciplined guards and the society is mandated to obey all labour laws in the matter of deployment and payment to the security guards. The rates at which, the security guards are to be hired are approved by the Governing body which consists of Government officials, noted hereinabove. The security personnels are trained disciplined guards and the society is mandated to obey all labour laws in the matter of deployment and payment to the security guards. The rates at which, the security guards are to be hired are approved by the Governing body which consists of Government officials, noted hereinabove. For the mere fact that the petitioner society is an organization which works on No profit No loss basis, the demand raised by the workmen, the security guards deployed by the petitioner society cannot be denied. The work of the security guards deployed in different organizations is perennial in nature. 26. The only defence of the petitioner society is that the security guards are being provided minimum wages and for payment of any higher pay-scale wages, financial capability of the employer is to be assessed. 27. We do not have any doubt about the said statement, but the issue in the present case is that the petitioner society is merely a service provider/contractor, and the payments made by the Principal employers, namely different Government organizations and private employers of the wages of the security guards hired by them are simply transmitted by the petitioner society to individual workmen/security guards. The petitioner society is entitled for the payment of the services provided by it from the Principal employer. The petitioner is also obliged to include all benefits under the labour laws admissible to individual workmen in the bills submitted by it to the Principal employer. In such a situation, the financial capability of the petitioner society to pay fair wages to the workmen deployed by it in different Government and private organizations, would not be a relevant factor. As regards the financial capabilities of the Principal employer, only some communications have been brought on record to agitate that the Principal employers which are essentially Government, Semi-Government organizations have refused to enhance the wages. 28. We may further note that even the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2003 noted hereinabove, talks of providing quality services at “reasonable rates” and making all necessary efforts and measures in that respect. GISFS(petitioner society) is required to seek approval of the rates by the Governing body and recover the rates, accordingly, for the services rendered by it. 28. We may further note that even the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2003 noted hereinabove, talks of providing quality services at “reasonable rates” and making all necessary efforts and measures in that respect. GISFS(petitioner society) is required to seek approval of the rates by the Governing body and recover the rates, accordingly, for the services rendered by it. No such effort made by the competent governing body of the GISFS for fixation of the reasonable rates which must include fair wages for the workmen working as the security guard with the petitioner Society. Reference to the Private Security Agencies Act’ 2005 to agitate the issue of payment to the security guards at the minimum wages is wholly irrelevant. 29. We may note that the concept of wage structure in the industry has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the Workmen Represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. and another, (1992) 1 SCC 290 ,wherein the wage structure prevalent in the industry has been divided into three categories in a broad manner. The basic “minimum wage” which provides bare subsistence and is at poverty line level, a little above is the “fair wage” and finally the “living wage” which comes at a comfort level. It was noted by the Apex Court therein that though it is not possible to demarcate these levels of wage structure with any precision, however, well accepted norms, which broadly distinguish one category of pay structure from another, can be seen in the Fair Wages Committee report published by the Government of India Ministry of Labour in the year 1949, which defines the “living wage” as under:- “8………...xxx….xxx….xxx…………..xxxx…. “the living wage should enable the male earner to provide for himself and his family not merely the bare essentials of food, clothing and shelter but a measure of frugal comfort including education for the children, protection against ill-health, requirements of essential social needs, and a measure of insurance against the more important misfortunes including old age.” 30. The Committee’s view regarding “minimum wage” are as under:- “9….…...xxx….xxx….xxx………………..xxxx….. “the minimum wage must provide not merely for the bare sustenance of life but for the preservation of the efficiency of the worker. For this purpose the minimum wage must also provide for some measure of education, medical requirement sand amenities.” 31. The Committee’s view regarding “minimum wage” are as under:- “9….…...xxx….xxx….xxx………………..xxxx….. “the minimum wage must provide not merely for the bare sustenance of life but for the preservation of the efficiency of the worker. For this purpose the minimum wage must also provide for some measure of education, medical requirement sand amenities.” 31. The Fair Wages Committee’s report has been broadly approved by the Apex Court in Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 , and Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 895 . 32. The Tripartite Committee of the Indian Labour Conference held in New Delhi in 1957 declared the wage policy which was to be followed during the Second Five year Plan. The Committee accepted the following five norms for the fixation of “minimum wages”:- “10………...xxx….xxx….xxx………………..xxxx ……. “(i) In calculating the minimum wage, the standard working class family should be taken to consist of 3 consumption units for one earner; the earnings of women, children and adolescents should be disregarded. (ii) Minimum food requirement should be calculated on the basis of a net intake of calories, as recommended by Dr Aykroyd for an average Indian adult of moderate activity. (iii) Clothing requirements should be estimated at per capita consumption of 18 yards per annum which would give for the average workers' family of four, a total of 72 yards. (iv) In respect of housing, the rent corresponding to the minimum area provided for under Government's Industrial Housing Scheme should be taken into consideration in fixing the minimum wage. (v) Fuel, lighting and other ‘miscellaneous’ items of expenditure should constitute 20 per cent of the total minimum wage.” 33. The above names have been referred to with approval by the Apex Court in Standard Vaccuum Refining Co. of India (supra). It was, thus, observed therein that the concept of “ minimum wage” is no longer the same. The worker’s wage is no longer a contract between an employer and an employee. It has the force of collective bargaining under the labour laws. Each category of the wage structure has to be tested at the anvil of social justice, which is the live-fibre of our society. The worker’s wage is no longer a contract between an employer and an employee. It has the force of collective bargaining under the labour laws. Each category of the wage structure has to be tested at the anvil of social justice, which is the live-fibre of our society. Keeping in view the social economic aspect of the wage structure, the Apex Court has observed that it is necessary to add an additional component as a guide for fixing the minimum wage in the industry:- “12....xxx….xxx….xxx………………..xxxx………… “(vi) children's education, medical requirement minimum recreation including festivals/ceremonies and provision for old age, marriages etc. should further constitute 25 per cent of the total minimum wage.” 34. It was, thus, observed that the wage structure which approximately answers the above six components is nothing more than a minimum wage at subsistence level. The employees are entitled to the minimum wage at all times and under all circumstances. An employer who cannot pay the minimum wage has no right to engage labour and no justification to run the industry. From the constitutional perspective, it was observed therein as under:- “14. A living wage has been promised to the workers under the Constitution. A ‘socialist’ framework to enable the working people a decent standard of life, has further been promised by the 42nd Amendment. The workers are hopefully looking forward to achieve the said ideal. The promises are piling up but the day of fulfilment is nowhere in sight. Industrial wage — looked at as a whole — has not yet risen higher than the level of minimum wage.” 35. The wage structure promising descent standard of life to the workers is still a far cry. The employers in wage revision matters take a standard defense that they are paying minimum wages to the employees engaged by them as contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act. The concept of minimum wages has been given a statutory backing by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, with the statement that no industry has a right to exist unless it is able to pay its workmen at least “a bare minimum wage”. The Act provides for fixation of minimum rate of wages or revision by the appropriate Government in respect of scheduled employments. The Act provides for fixation of minimum rate of wages or revision by the appropriate Government in respect of scheduled employments. The bare minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is with the idea that no industry or employer can pay its employee wages lesser than the minimum wage fixed under the Act. However, the minimum Wages Act, 1948 does not deal with the concept of “fair wages” or “living wages” promised under the Constitution, which manifests that each person has a right to decent standard of living by earning wages which not only meet the requirement of food, clothing and shelter, but education of children, medical requirement, minimum recreational expenses, including festivities/ceremonies, provision for old age and marriage for his children. These are the bare minimum requirements of a family unit in India, which is still at the poverty line level, aspiring to have a decent standard of living where the bread earner may be able to meet the bare minimum needs of the family comprising of, women, children, adolescents and old age parents. 36. The provision for wage revision under the labour laws has, thus, been incorporated so as to enable the Labour and Industrial Tribunal to fix a fair wage structure for the employees engaged in an industry, falling within their jurisdiction. 37. The Apex Court in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 Supp(1) SCC 600, has laid great emphasis on the concept of fair wages intertwined with the Right to life. Paragraphs No.”231” and “232” (at pages 716 and 717) of the said decision are quoted hereinunder: “231. The employment under the public undertakings is a public employment and a public property. It is not only the undertakings but also the society which has a stake in their proper and efficient working. Both discipline and devotion are necessary for efficiency. To ensure both, the service conditions of those who work for them must be encouraging, certain and secured, and not vague and whimsical. With capricious service conditions, both discipline and devotion are endangered, and efficiency is impaired. 232. The right to life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their mercy. With capricious service conditions, both discipline and devotion are endangered, and efficiency is impaired. 232. The right to life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their mercy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be a mockery of them.” 38. The question of revision of wages of workmen was examined by the Constitution Bench in Express Newspapers (P) Ltd.(supra), wherein the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down the principles for fixation of rates of wages as under: (AIR P.605, paragraph No.73) “19………...The question of revision of wages of workmen was examined by a Constitution Bench in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India [ AIR 1958 SC 578 ] having regard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Minimum Wages Act and the following principles for fixation of rates of wages were laid down : (AIR p. 605, para 73) “(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 the 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 background that the burden of the increased rate should not be such as to drive the employer out of business.” (emphasis supplied) 39. The same question was again examined in Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1332 and the Apex Court recorded its conclusion in the following manner in paragraph No. “7” of the Report as under: (AIR p. 1336) “7. While industrial adjudication will be happy to fix a wage structure which would give the workmen generally a living wage, economic considerations make that only dream for the future. That is why the Industrial Tribunals in this country generally confine their horizon to the target of fixing a fair wage. But there again, the economic factors have to be carefully considered. For these reasons, this Court has repeatedly emphasised the need of considering the problem on an industry-cum-region basis, and of giving careful consideration to the ability of the industry to pay.” (emphasis supplied)” 40. Taking note of the above, balancing rights and responsibilities of workmen and the petitioner society, namely the employee and the employer, we may note that the record indicates that the workmen of the organization are being paid wages under the Minimum Wages Act for bare sustenance and the organization receives total of 12% administrative charges for providing services to the Principal employer. The petitioner society does not take any financial assistance from the Government. However, the Governing body of the organization is supposed to decide on reasonable rate/fair wages for the workmen deployed by the petitioner society in different organizations. The observations of the Tribunal while granting wage revision, increase of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of the award, therefore, is relevant to be extracted hereinunder:- “8) At present the government is giving the pay as per the 7th Pay Commission recommendation. The applicant is serving in the organizations that are either aided by the government or are a part of the government. The situation is such that the inflation has risen and it is required that the workmen lead their life in a dignified position. Thus it would be proper to consider raise in their pay while considering that their families’ economical, social and educational goes better. It has been decided on the basis of the order dated 11.12.2003 passed by the Industry and Mines department that the various government offices, semi-government offices, government hospitals and clinics, board corporations, etc. Thus it would be proper to consider raise in their pay while considering that their families’ economical, social and educational goes better. It has been decided on the basis of the order dated 11.12.2003 passed by the Industry and Mines department that the various government offices, semi-government offices, government hospitals and clinics, board corporations, etc. shall take the services of the organization for the purpose of safety and security and further that the services shall be taken on the basis of the fix amount mentioned without any kind of passing of tender. While considering the above mentioned order, it is clear that the organization is to impart its service on equal rate. In this situation, it is upon the organization that it decides the rates of its services and thus it can increase the rate. While considering the exhibit 111, 112,113,114 and 130, it is clear that the places like the government technical high school, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, government press, Arasari Ambaji Mata Devsthal Trust and director of agriculture are such institutes that have approved post of permanent watchman/security person. These particular institutes provide the pay at par to the other employees under them and thus they are given the benefit of government pay. While considering the above, the applicant workmen are employed under these government or government granted places but they are given minimum wages. While considering the above, it seems that it is proper to provide a reasonable increase in the pay of the workmen. While considering the above mentioned facts, it would be proper and reasonable to provide Rs.500 along with Rs.1,500 as increase in pay, under the Minimum Wages Act, for the pay and interim relief. On the basis of the above mentioned facts, it is hereby decided that each of the workmen shall receive Rs.1,500 increase in pay along with the Rs.500 received as interim relief. The industrial tribunal has increased the pay of the workmen at Rs.500 per month as interim relief. It is therefore decided that the workmen are having the right to obtain an increase of Rs.1,500 per month from the date of that particular order. As the workmen are having the right to obtain an increase in pay of Rs.1,500 from the date of that particular order, the workmen shall not be entitled to be provided with benefits prior to that. As the workmen are having the right to obtain an increase in pay of Rs.1,500 from the date of that particular order, the workmen shall not be entitled to be provided with benefits prior to that. It is further stated that this particular benefit shall be provided in addition to the interim relief and thereby as the final benefit.” 41. In view of the above discussion, in light of the findings returned by the Tribunal, the increase of wages to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month cannot be said to suffer from any error of law and in no case excessive so as to cause any financial burden on the employer namely the petitioner society. 42. With regard to other directions such as providing new point to the workmen by the organization within three days in the case of closure of the point, the Tribunal seems to have proceeded with the idea to grant continuous employment to the workmen who are otherwise permanently engaged by the petitioner society and, thus, to avoid any instance of artificial break in their services. The directions that the workmen would be entitled to receive wages if the organization fails to provide alternative point to the workmen is with the caveat that it would be the duty of the workmen to report and remain present on the new point. 43. In any case, this direction is not required to be modified by us for the simple reason that no such circumstance has been placed before us wherein it could be demonstrated that there is a dearth of points with the petitioner society and as such is not in a position to give alternative place to accommodate its workmen, whose jobs are admittedly perennial in nature. It is pertinent to state that the workmen before the Tribunal were working since the year 1997 continuously and the dispute for wage revision was raised in the year 2016. We, therefore, do not have any good reason to interfere with the said directions of the Tribunal. 44. As regards the retirement age considered to be 60 years, the directions contained in the judgement of the Tribunal are only to the extent that the demand raised by the workmen to be retired at the age of 60 years is found to be proper. 44. As regards the retirement age considered to be 60 years, the directions contained in the judgement of the Tribunal are only to the extent that the demand raised by the workmen to be retired at the age of 60 years is found to be proper. There is no mandate of the Tribunal that the workmen should be necessarily retired at the age of 60 years and, moreover, it was the demand of the workmen, whereas the further demand raised by the workmen for payment of full wages and other benefits to the workmen who retired before the age of 60 years has been rejected. The final directions contained in the award that the organization should retire the workmen in 60 years is to be read and understood in the above context. Moreover, there is no prohibition for the organization to recruit any retired person on administrative post in the organization. It seems that the said observation was made by the Tribunal with the idea of maintaining the efficiency of the organization. 45. As regards the conveyance allowance and the benefits such as overtime, transfer allowance, washing allowance etc., we do not find any good ground to interfere. 46. As far as interim measure of Rs.500/- per month, which had been granted to the workmen during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and that the same has not been adjusted in the final increase granted to the workmen from the date of award, is perfectly justified. 47. Lastly, the directions to the effect that the workmen who have filed criminal cases as a part of their duty are to be provided paid leave for the purposes of remaining present before the Court proceedings, has been given noticing that the workmen was required to attend the Court proceedings as a part of his duty for the criminal cases registered by the parent institutions. 48. Lastly, on the question of promotion, it is placed before us that the promotional avenue has been provided to the workmen. The Rules have been framed for promotion. Examinations have been conducted. The results has been kept in abeyance and placed under sealed cover in view of the order dated 29.09.2017 passed by this Court. 49. In view of the above discussion, we reached at the conclusion that both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and hence dismissed. The Rules have been framed for promotion. Examinations have been conducted. The results has been kept in abeyance and placed under sealed cover in view of the order dated 29.09.2017 passed by this Court. 49. In view of the above discussion, we reached at the conclusion that both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and hence dismissed. The results of the promotion are directed to be declared by the petitioner society. No order as to costs. All connected applications, accordingly, stand disposed of.