On the basis of this finding of fact, the Tribunal held that, if te minimum wage in the Coml?any !s to be !Jxed ore on the b1s of the minimum wage prevaihng m other mdustnes m that region B which, in its opinion, would be apprnpnate under the Clfcumstances of the case, then, a revision was really necessary. We think that the criticism of learned counsel for the workmen that the Tribunal committed an error at this stage in merely holding that the facts found by it justified a revision and in not proceed. ing to fix minimum wages on the basis of the other indutries in the region, is fully justified. It is to be noted that there 1s no c mention in the award of the Tribunal that the Company at any stage put forward the case that the Collieries, the Steel Plant, the Cement Factory, and the Aluminium Company were concerns which were not comparable with the Company. In fact, in the course of arguments before us, we asked learned ·counsel for the Company to point out whether such a plea was taken at any stage D by the Company and whether evidence was led to show that these concerns were not comparable with the Company. Learned counsel had to admit that no specific plea was taken by the Company in this behalf and at least no evidence at all was led to show that these concerns are not comparable with the Company. The workmen in their written statement had relied on the wage strucE ture in these concerns obviously on the basis that they were comparable. Since the Company never took the plea that they were not comparable, no occasion arose for the workmen to give evidence of the concerns being comparable. In fact, :he Tribunal also accepted them as being comparable and that is why, in its conclusion, the Tribunal held that, in its opinion, it would be appropriate under the circumstances of the case to fix the miniF mum. ~age_ in the ompay n the basi of the minimum wage prevailing m other mdustnes m that region. By the expression "other industries in the region" the Tribunal w11s obviously referring to these concerns. Having come to this view, it is clear !IJat, to give full effect to the principle laid down by this Court lil the case of French Motor Car Co. (1 ), the Tribunal should have G proceeded to fix the minimum wage in the Company on the basis of the average minimum wage prevailing in these concerns. We ~ave already quoted the figures of the minimum wage prevailing m these concerns. On their basis, it appears to us that there will be full justification for fixing the minimum wage in the Company at Rs. 9 5 per mensum which is about the average of the wages prevailing in all those concerns. In this connection, we H may take notice of the fact that, in the written statement of the workmen, the minimum wages prevailing in these concerns were (I) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 16.
