Extra shift allowance interpretation treated as a pure question of law, with reference to be made despite the purported circular.

Entitlement to extra shift allowance on the entire plant and machinery, including newly installed machinery operated only for part of the year, was treated as a pure question of law. The Tribunal had declined reference on the footing that the issue was covered by a Board circular, but the Court held the purported circular was in substance only a letter and did not bar examination of the rule's interpretation. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in refusing to refer the question, and the issue was directed to be referred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to refer the question relating to entitlement to extra shift allowance on the entire plant and machinery, including newly installed machinery, irrespective of the number of days for which double or triple shift was worked during the previous year.

Analysis: The Tribunal had declined to make a reference on the ground that the issue was covered by a Board circular and was therefore not open to agitation. The Court held that the so-called circular was in substance a letter and that the controversy turned on the interpretation of the rule governing extra shift allowance, including the effect of installation of new machinery late in the accounting year and its operation for only a part of that year. These were held to raise a pure question of law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in refusing the reference, and the question on extra shift allowance was directed to be referred to the Court.

---