Shivasankarappa K. Vs. His Workmen and ors.

- code of civil procedure, 1908. section 100: [d.v. shylendra kumar, j] substantial question of law - regular second appeal suit for recovery of possession acceptance of report of court commissioner that there was no encroachment by the defendant into property of the plaintiff judgment and decree appealed against held, substantial question of law should be with reference to the legal position as emerges from the judgments and decrees of courts below for admitting an appeal under section100 c.p.c., the question of law which is vague, general in nature and not with reference to the particular case cannot be considered as substantial question of law. on facts, held, the question of law as framed at the time of admission does not necessarily indicate as to what aspect of legal position has been erroneously or wrongly decided by the lower appellate court and in what manner. further, the right, title and interest over the entire extent of land as pleaded by the plaintiff itself is doubtful and not a thing which is proved. the suit for recovery of possession therefore inevitably fails. - 2. sri venkataramayya complained that the award in this regard is arbitrary and does not rest upon an intelligible principle or ground. it is a very well-recognized principle that dearness allowance could be awarded in cases in which the scales of pay falls short of the living wage. the application of the mind of the labour court was, therefore, necessary to the question whether the scales of pay obtaining in the industry fell short of the living wage and how far that gap between the living wage and the scale of pay could be neutralized by the award of dearness allowance, having due regard to the advantages enjoyed by the workmen, and which the industry had the capacity to pay......the industry called 'jayalakshmi textiles' is the petitioner before us, and the complaint made on its behalf is against one portion of the award made by the labour court, bangalore, in a reference made to it under s. 10 of the industrial disputes act, at the instance of the workmen of the industry. many demands were made by those workmen and an award pursuant to the reference made under s. 10, was made granting most of them. but the only part of the award which is challenged in this writ petition is the dearness allowance allowed by the labour court at a flat rate of rs. 6.50 for each workman a month. although the labour court in para. 17 of its award did address itself to the question whether the financial stability and economic condition of the industry justified the award of any dearness allowance to the workmen, it did not proceed to rest its decision on any finding that there was such basis for the fixation or the award of any dearness allowance, but thought that because the industry has made some profits in the year 1957-58 and had also reduced its wage expenses by about rs. 9,000 there was a case for the award of dearness allowance. 2. sri venkataramayya complained that the award in this regard is arbitrary and does not rest upon an intelligible principle or ground. this complaint is, to our mind, substantial. now. it is a very well-recognized principle that dearness allowance could be awarded in cases in which the scales of pay falls short of the living wage. the application of the mind of the labour court was, therefore, necessary to the question whether the scales of pay obtaining in the industry fell short of the living wage and how far that gap between the living wage and the scale of pay could be neutralized by the award of dearness allowance, having due regard to the advantages enjoyed by the workmen, and which the industry had the capacity to pay. far from addressing itself to these considerations which form the foundation of the award for the.....