Indian Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen
[1968] INSC 175 (5 August 1968)
05/08/1968 SHELAT, J.M.
SHELAT, J.M.
BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
CITATION: 1969 AIR 306 1969 SCR (1) 550
CITATOR INFO :
F 1973 SC2143 (4,5) E&D 1985 SC1034
(18,19,21)
ACT:
Industrial Dispute--Joint application to
refer dispute--Membership of workmen union thrown open--Whether award applies
to night members only--Overtime--Principles of payment--Absence without leave
to attend meetings etc.--If permissible.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant and its workmen, represented by
their union called the Indoxco Labour Union, Jamshedpur, made a joint
application to the Government referring certain disputes to the Industrial
Tribunal. The application stated that the number of workmen employed in the
undertaking affected were those employed in the company's factory at
Jamshedput, and that the same number were likely to be affected by the
disputes. The Government referred the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal, and
the notification also stated that the disputes were between the management of
the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and their workmen represented by
Indoxco Labour Union. Two of the demands were (1) payment of overtime to office
staff should be 1 1/2 times the ordinary rate .and (2) the union
representatives should be allowed special leave to attend law courts for
matters connected with the workers and the management, to attend the annual
conventions of their federation, to attend to Executive Committee meetings of
the union-federation and the conventions of the central organisation i.e.,
INTUC. The union at a general meeting, held prior to the reference, had passed
a resolution changing the name of the union to Indian Oxygen Workers Union and
making the workmen of all the establishments of the Appellant company in Bihar
eligible for its membership.
By a letter the union informed the appellant
company at Jamshedpur of this amendment. The Tribunal held that (i) the award
in this case was to apply to all of the workmen and could not be restricted to
the workman working at Jamshedpur; (ii) 11/2 times the ordinary wages 'for
overtime work exceeding 39 hours but not exceeding 48 hours per week should be
paid; and if the overtime exceeded 48 hours per week, the company would be liable
to pay double the ordinary rate of wages; and (iii) the appellant company had
been allowing without loss of pay the representatives of the workmen to attend
proceedings before conciliation officers and Industrial Tribunals, and that
this concession was sufficient; therefore the Tribunal rejected the demand for
special Leave with pay to attend the law courts; but held the union's
representatives were to be given special leave to attend (a) meetings of its
executive committee, (b) meetings of the federation of the union, (c) the
annual convention of that federation when held at Jamshedpur and (d) the
convention of the INTUC.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD: (i) The award was operative only in
respect of the workmen of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and not
the workmen of its other establishments. [561 C-D] The agreement by which the
parties agreed to refer the said disputes for adjudication was between the
management of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur. and the workmen
employed in that factory and represented by their said union, the Indoxco
Labour Union. Under the notification of the Government also 'the disputes
referred to the Tribunal 551 were those set out in the said agreement. Even
assuming that the Indoxco Labour Union validly amended its constitution so as
to extend its membership to the company's other workmen in its other
establishments, inasmuch as the disputes referred to. the Tribunal were only
those set out in the said agreement, any award made by the Tribunal in respect
of those disputes must necessarily be confined to the disputes refered to it,
the parties to those disputes and the parties who had agreed to refer those
disputes for adjudication.
There is nothing to show in that notification
that other workmen of the company had raised similar demands. or that there
were any disputes existing or apprehended which were included in that
reference. [555 D-G] The Union did not produce any evidence to show that the
amendments purported to have been carried out by the resolution were sent to
the Registrar as provided in ss.
6(g), 28(3), 29 and 30(3) of the Trade Union
Act and regulation 9 of the Central Trade Union Regulation, nor did it produce
any communication of the Registrar notifying the fact of his having registered
the said amendments.. The only evidence it produced was its letter to the
appellant company which indicated that the Registrar notified to the union of
his having registered the said amendments. The Tribunal's conclusion,
therefore, that the union's.
constitution, was duly amended or that the
Indian Oxygen Workers Union represented the workmen of the company's factory at
Jamshedpur and that consequently it made no difference that the name of Indoxco
Labour Union as representing the workmen concerned was mentioned in the said
agreement and the said statement and not that of the Indian Oxygen Workers
Union is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Any award, therefore, made by the
Tribunal in these circumstances can operate only in respect of the workmen of the
appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and the Tribunal's extension of that
award to workmen in the company's other establishments was clearly without
jurisdiction. [557 D-G] The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen,
[1960] 3 S.C.R. 157 and Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty,
[1960] 3 S.C.R. 968, distinguished.
(ii) Under the conditions of service of the
company, the total hours of work per week were 39 hours. The Bihar Shops and
Establishments Act fixes the maximum number of hours of work allowable there under,
i.e. 48 hours a week, and provides for double the rate of ordinary wages for
work done over and above 48 hours. But no reliance can be placed on the
provisions of that Act for the company's contention that it cannot be called
upon to. pay for overtime work anything more than its ordinary rate of wages if
the workmen do work beyond 39 hours but not exceeding 49 hours a week.
Any workman asked 'to work beyond 39 hours
would obviously be working overtime and the company in fairness would be
expected to pay him compensation for such overtime work. If the company pays at
the ordinary rate of wages for work done beyond 39 hours but not exceeding 48
hours work a week, it would be paying no extra compensation at all for the work
done beyond the agreed hours of work. The company would thus be indirectly
increasing the hours of work and consequently altering its condition of
service. [558 C-F] If after taking into consideration the fact of the
comparatively higher scale of wages prevailing in the appellant company, the
Tribunal fixed the rate for overtime work at 11/2- times the ordinary rate of
wages, it is impossible to say that the Tribunal erred in doing so or acted
unjustly.
(iii) The demand for special leave must be disallowed.
552 The appellant company. has been allowing
those of its workmen who are the union's representatives to attend without loss
of pay proceedings before conciliation officers and industrial tribunals. In
conceding the demand of the union for more leave the Tribunal does not appear
to have considered the adverse effect on the company's production if further
absenteeism were to be allowed especially when the crying need of the country's
economy is more and more production. In awarding this demand the Tribunal also
did not specify on how many' occasions the executive committee meetings of the
union and other meetings would be held when the company would be obliged to
give special leave with pay to the union's representatives.
Similarly, there is no knowing how many
delegates the union would send to attend the conventions of the federation and
the INTUC. The Tribunal could not in the very nature of things specify or limit
the number of such meetings for such an attempt would amount to interference in
the administration of the union and its autonomy. Its order must of necessity,
therefore, have to be indefinite with the result that the appellant company
would not know beforehand on how many occasions and to how many of its workmen
it would be called upon to grant special leave. Further, in case there are more
than one union in the company's establishment, the representatives of all such
unions would also have to be given such leave to attend the aforesaid meetings.
In considering such a demand, the question as to why the meetings of the
executive committee of the union cannot be 'held outside the hours of work
should be considered. It was said that it may not be possible always to do so
if an emergency arises. But emergencies are not of regular occurrence and if
there be one, the representatives can certainly sacrifice one of their earned
leave.
Similarly the meetings of the federation and
the annual conventions of the INTUC too can be artended by the union's
delegates by availing themselves of their earned leave.
[559 D-E; 560 C-H] J. K. Cotton and Spinning
and Weaving Mills v. Badri Malt, [19641 3 S.C.R. 724, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 560 of1966.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
September 28, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar in Reference No. 32 of
1963.
A.C. Mitra and D.N. Gupta, for the appellant.
O.P. Sharma and V.C. Parashar, for the
respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is against the award dated September
28, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
The appellant company is an all India complex
having establishments in different parts of the country. In Bihar alone, it has
two factories, one at Jamshedpur and the other at Ranchi, and has depots at
Patna and other towns. The factory at Jamshedpur is an establishment under the
Bihar Shops and Establishments Act.
Certain disputes having arisen between the appellant
company and its workmen employed in the factory at Jamshedpur, the company and
the said workmen represented by their. union called the Indoxco Labour Union,
Jamshedpur, made a joint application dated September 7, 1963 to the Government
of Bihar for a reference under s. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
By a notification dated October 23, 1963, the Government referred five disputes
to the Tribunal for adjudication. We are concerned' in this appeal with only
two disputes arising from demands Nos3 and 5. These demands were, No. 3.
"The payment of overtime to office staff should be 11/2 times the ordinary
rate beyond their normal duty hours." No. 5. "Union representatives
should be allowed special leave to attend to law courts for matters connected
with the workers and the management, to attend to annual conventions of their
federation, to attend to Executive Committee meeting of the union- federation
and convention of central organisation i.e., INTUC." As required by r. 3
of the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules, 1961, the statement accompanying the
said application signed by the District Manager on behalf of the company and
the General Secretary of the said union representing the said workmen contamed
inter alia the following information, namely, "( c ) Number of workmen
employed in the undertaking affected 352 (d) Estimated number of workmen
affected or likely to be affected by the dispute 352" It is quite dear
from the said application and the statement signed by the parties, ( 1 ) that
the said disputes concerned the 352 workmen employed in the company's factory
at Jamshedpur and (2) that these 352 workmen were represented by the Indoxco
Labour Union.
The said notification also stated
"Whereas the Governor of Bihar is of opinion that an industrial dispute
exists or is apprehended between the management of Indian Oxygen Limited ....
Jamshedpur-7 and their workmen represented by Indoxco Labour Union .....
Jamshedpur, regarding the matters specified in their joint applications dated
7-9- 1963 annexed hereto .... Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred
by sub-sec. (2 ) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of
1947), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to refer the said dispute .... ."
The notification thus makes it clear that the disputes referred to the Tribunal
were disputes set out in the said agreement and statement and were between the
management of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and their workmen
represented by the Indoxco Labour Union.
It appears, however, that the union at its
general meeting held on January 6, 1963, purported to amend its constitution by
a resolution passed thereat by changing the name of the union to Indian Oxygen
Workers Union and making the workmen of all the establishments of the appellant
company in Bihar eligible for its membership.
Ext. C is the copy of a letter dated January
21, 1963 by which the Secretary of the said union informed the District Manager
of the appellant company at Jamshedpur of the said purported amendment. The
Tribunal appears to be of the view that the' constitution of the said Indoxco
Labour Union came to be amended as from January 6, 1963 and that as the said
reference was made in October 1963, i.e., after the said purported amendment,
"the mention in it of the dispute as a dispute between the company and
Indoxco Labour Union does not materially affect the position that the dispute
raised by the union is in respect of the employees of the company wherever they
may be stationed. Consequently, the award in this case shall be effective in
respect of all of them and cannot be restricted to the workmen working at
Jamshedpur". So far as the workmen's demands Nos. 3 and 5 were concerned,
the Tribunal after observing that the company's wage scales were satisfactory,
compared the rates of overtime paid by other industrial concerns in Jamshedpur
and awarded 1 1/4 times the ordinary wages for overtime work exceeding 39 hours
but not exceeding 48 hours per week. If the overtime exceeded 48 hours per
week, 48 hours of work being the maximum provided by the Bihar Shops and
Establishments Act, the company would be liable to pay at double the ordinary
rate of wages as provided in that Act.
Regarding demand No. 5, the union produced
three letters addressed to its Secretary, ( 1 ) a letter by the General
Secretary of the Tara Workers Union, (Ext. I) dated November 30, 1963, wherein
it was stated that the officials of that union were granted special leave to attend
the union's executive committee meetings, the meetings of their federation and
the meetings of the I.N.T.U.C. if held at Jamshedpur; (2) a letter dated
January 25, 1964 by the General Secretary of Golmuri Tinplate Workers Union ,
Jamshedpur, to the effect that members of the executive committee of that union
were relieved from duty with pay to attend meetings of the executive committee
or any other meeting called by the union except mass meetings and the union's
delegates were also. Allowed special leave with pay to attend I.N.T.U.C.
sessions; and (3) a letter dated December 7, 1963 by the Secretary of Telco
Workers Union, Jamshedpur, to the effect that members of the executive
committee of that union and office bearers were allowed to attend union's meetings
without loss of pay. The Tribunal noted that the appellant company 555 had been
allowing without loss of pay the representatives of the workmen to attend
proceedings before conciliation officers and Industrial Tribunals. This
concession, it considered, was sufficient and, therefore, rejected the demand
for special leave with pay to attend the law courts.
But it awarded that the union's
representatives should be given special leave to attend (1 ) meetings of its
executive commit, tee, (2) meetings of the federation of the union, (3) the
annual convention of that federation when held at Jamshedpur and (4) the
convention of the I.N.T.U.C.
The first contention urged on behalf of the
appellant company was that the Tribunal was in error in making its award
operative not only to the said workmen at its Jamshedpur factory but also to
workmen at its other establishments and that in doing so it acted beyond
jurisdiction. In our view, this contention must be upheld.
In the first place, the agreement by which the
parties agreed to refer the said disputes for adjudication was clearly between
the management of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and the workmen
employed in that factory and represented by their said union the Indoxco Labour
Union. The statement accompany that agreement clearly stated that the disputes
agreed to be referred to were between the workmen of that factory and the
management of that factory. The notification referring those disputes to the
Tribunal also made it Clear that the disputes referred to were those set out in
the said agreement and the statement and no other dispu,tes and further that
they were the disputes between the parties to that agreement. There was no
evidence before the Tribunal that similar demands were raised by workmen
engaged in the appellant company's other establishments. Even assuming that the
Indoxco Labour Union validly amended its constitution so as to extend its
membership to the company's other workmen in its other establishments, inasmuch
as the disputes referred to the Tribunal were only those set out in the said
agreement and the said statement, any award made by the Tribunal in respect of
those disputes must necessarily be confined to the disputes referred to it, the
parties to those disputes 'and the parties who had agreed to refer those
disputes for adjudication.
Next, as to the claim of the Union that it
had amended its constitution on January 6, 1963 and, therefore, as the workmen
of the factory at Jamshedpur came henceforth to be represented by the Indian
Oxygen Workers' Union which represented also workmen employed in the appellant
company's other establishments, the reference extended to them also and the
Tribunal's award would cover them also.
We fail to see any connection between the
purported amendment of the union's constitution and 556 the reference made by
the government on the basis of the said agreement and the said' statement.
These, as aforesaid, related to the disputes between the management and the
workmen of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur who alone had made the
aforesaid demands and disputes arising from those demands only were agreed to
be referred to and were actually referred to the Tribunal by the said
notification. There is nothing to show in that notification that other workmen
of the company had raised similar demands or that there were any disputes
existing or apprehended which were included in that reference.
The question next is whether the union's
constitution was duly amended on January 6, 1963 as claimed by the union and
held by the Tribunal. The constitution of the union prior to its purported
amendment contained amongst other Articles, Articles 1 and 3. These Articles
read as follows:
"ARTICLE NO. 1: Name and Address:
1. This Union is a Trade Union Organisation
of wage earners of the Indian Oxygen & Acetylene Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur and
shall be called. Indoxco Labour Union.
3. The situation of the Registered- Office
shall not be changed except by resolution of the General Body Meeting specially
held for the purpose. Any change of the address of the Registered Office of the
Union will be communicated to the Registrar of the Trade Unions within 14 days
of such change." Article XII of the said constitution deals with
alteration of rules and cl. (e) thereof provides that copies of all new rules
and amendments or revisions of .rules shall be submitted to the Registrar
within the prescribed period as required by s. 28(3) of the Trade Unions Act,
1926. This rule had to be incorporated in the constitution in view of the
express terms of that section.
Section 6 of the Trade Unions Act provides
that a trade union would not be entitled to registration under the Act unless
the executive thereof is constituted in accordance, with the provisions of this
Act, and the rules thereof provide amongst other things for its name and the
manner in which the rules shall be amended, varied or rescinded.
Section 28(3) provides that a copy of every
alteration made in the rules of a registered trade union shall be sent to the
Registrar Within fifteen days of the making of the alteration. Section 29
contains the power of the appropriate government to make regulations and sub-s.
2(a) provides that without prejudice to the generality of the power in sub-s.
(1 ) such regulations may provide inter alia for the manner in which trade
unions and their rules shall be registered. Section 30(3) lays 557 down that
regulations so made shall be published in the official gazette and on such
publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act. In pursuance of the
power to make regulations the Central Government framed Central Trade Unions
Regulations, 1938, regulation 9 whereof provided that on receiving a copy of an
alteration made in the rules of a trade union under s. 28(3), the Registrar
shall register the alteration in the register maintained for this purpose and
shall notify the fact that he has done so to the secretary of the trade union.
The combined effect of secs. 6(g), 28(3), 29
and 30(3) and regulation 9 is that a registered union can alter its rules. only
in the manner provided in these provisions, that is, it has to send the amended
rules to the Registrar within 15 days from the amendment and until the
Registrar is satisfied that the amendments are in accordance with the rules of
the union and on such satisfaction registers them in a register kept for that
purpose and notifies that fact to the union's secretary, the amendments do not
become effective. The union did not produce any evidence to show that the
amendments purported to have been carried out by the said resolution dated
January 6, 1963 were sent to the Registrar as provided in the aforesaid
provisions, nor did it produce any communication of the Registrar notifying the
fact of his having registered the said amendments. The only evidence it
produced was its letter dated May 21, 1964 to the appellant company which
indicated that the Registrar notified to the union of his having registered the
said amendments on May 13, 1964. The Tribunal's conclusion, therefore, that the
union's constitution was duly amended on either January 6, or 21, 1963 or that,
therefore, the Indian Oxygen Workers Union represented the workmen of the
company's factory at Jamshedpur and that consequently it made no difference
that the name of Indoxco Labour Union as representing the workmen concerned was
mentioned in the said agreement and the said statement and not that of the
Indian Oxygen Workers Union is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Any award,
therefore, made by the Tribunal in these circumstances can operate only in
respect of the workmen of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and the
Tribunal's extension of that award to workmen in the company's other
establishments was clearly without jurisdiction. The decisions in The
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen(1) and Ramnagar Cane and
Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin ChakravortY(2) on the effect and interpretation of s.
18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, relied on by counsel for the union are
beside the point and do not assist him.
As regards the Tribunal's finding on demand
No. 3, counsel for the company raised two contentions: (1 ) that the company's
factory at Jamshedpur having been declared an establishment (1) [1960] 3 S.C.R.
157. (2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 968.
558 under the Bihar Shops and Establishments
Act, it could be made liable to pay for overtime work at the rate provided in
that Act, viz. at double the ordinary rate when a workman was asked to. work
beyond 48 hours per week as provided therein. Therefore, the argument ran, the
appellant company could not be asked to pay more than its ordinary rate of
wages payable to workmen if they were asked to work beyond 39 hours but not
exceeding 48 hours. And (2) that the comparative statement (Ext. M) of overtime
rates paid by other concerns in Jamshedpur before the Tribunal showed that if the
company were made to pay 11/4 times its ordinary rate of wages it would, in the
light of its higher scale of wages be paying more than the other concerns.
In our judgment both these contentions are
unsustainable. Under the conditions of service of the company, the total hours
of work per week are 39 hours. Any workman asked to work beyond these hours
would obviously be working overtime and the company in fairness would be
expected to pay him compensation for such overtime work.
The Bihar Shops and Establishments Act has no
relevance to this question as that Act fixes the maximum number of hours of
work allowable there under, i.e. 48 hours a week, and provides for double the
rate of ordinary wages for work done over and above 48 hours. It is not,
therefore, as if the provisions of that Act govern overtime payment payable by
an employer where maximum hours of work are governed by the conditions of
service prevailing in his establishment.
Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the
provisions of that Act for the company's contention that it cannot be called
upon to pay for overtime work anything more than its ordinary rate of wages if
the workmen do work beyond 39 hours but not exceeding 48 hours a week. It is
obvious that if the company was asked to pay at the rate equivalent to the
ordinary rate of wages for work done beyond 39 hours but not exceeding 48 hours
work a week, it would be paying no extra compensation at all for the work done
beyond the agreed hours of work. The company would in that case be indirectly
increasing the hours of work and consequently altering its conditions of
service.
Ext. M., relied on by counsel, gives the
overtime rate paid by six industrial concerns situate in Jamshedpur. Out of
these six concerns, four pay overtime compensation at 11/2 times the ordinary
wages and dearness allowance payable by them. If after taking into
consideration the fact of the comparatively higher scale of wages prevailing in
the appellant company the Tribunal fixed the rate for overtime work at 1 1/4 times
the ordinary rate of wages, it is impossible to say that the Tribunal erred in
doing so or acted unjustly. The company's contention, therefore, as regards
this demand must be rejected.
559 As regards demand No. 5, counsel for the
company very seriously challenged that part of the award as unjustified and
contended that an obligation to grant special leave to attend the meetings of
the executive committee of the union, the meetings of the federation and the
conventions of the I.N.T.U.C. over and above the various types of leave
available to the company's workmen was tantamount to the company having
practically to finance the administration and management of the union. He
argued that imposing such an obligation on the company cannot be justified on
the ground of social justice or promotion of trade unionism. Counsel for the
union, on the other hand, sought to support this part of the award on the
ground that such a demand was justified, as the Tribunal has observed, in the
interest of a proper growth' of trade union movement and the promotion of
harmony in industrial relations inasmuch as if facilities are given to the
workmen to conduct the administration of the union themselves, there would be
less possibility of outside elements establishing their hold on the union.
We apprehend the argument does not take into
consideration certain important aspects of the demand. As aforesaid, the
appellant company has been allowing those of its workmen who are the tmion's
representatives to attend without loss of pay proceedings before conciliation
officers and industrial tribunals. This is fair because conciliation
proceedings are likely to get the waste if the workmen's representatives are
not there to discuss the disputes and put forward their point of view before conciliation
officers and wherever possible to arrive at a settlement or compromise. Over
and above this facility, the workmen get various types of paid leave. As the
figures of such leave are not correctly 'stated in the award, we collected them
from counsel on both sides. The following table shows the types of leave
enjoyed by the workmen:
Factory Staff:
Earned leave .. 21 Festival leave .. 10
Casual leave .. 7 Medical leave .. 15 53 Office Staff:
Earned leave .. 21 Festival leave .. 17
Casual leave .. 7 Medical leave .. 15 560 General Staff:
Earned leave .. 15 Festival leave .. 17
Casual leave .. 7 Medical leave .. 15 54 It is impossible to say that the leave
granted by the company with full pay is not fair or even liberal. In conceding
the demand of the union the Tribunal does not appear to have considered the
adverse effect on the company's production if further absenteeism were to be
allowed especially when the crying need of the country' s economy is more and
more production and employers are exhorted to streamline their management to
achieve this objective and to bring down their cost in line with international
cost. In awarding this demand the Tribunal also did not specify on how many
occasions the executive committee meetings of the union and other meetings
would be held when the company would be obliged to give special leave with pay
to the union's representatives. Similarly there is no knowing how many
delegates the union would send to attend the conventions of the federation and
the I.N.T.U.C. The Tribunal could not in the very nature of things specify or
limit the number of such meetings for such an attempt would amount to
interference in the administration of the union and its autonomy. Its order
must of necessity, therefore, have to be indefinite with the result that the
appellant company would not know beforehand on how many occasions and to how
many of its workmen would be called upon to grant special leave. Further in
case there are more than one union in the company's establishment, the representatives
of all such unions would also have to be given such leave to attend the
aforesaid meetings.
A healthy growth of trade union movement
undoubtedly would lead to industrial peace and harmony and consequently to
higher efficiency. But a demand of the type we have before us has to be
considered from a11 aspects and its implications and results have to be
properly examined. In considering such a demand, the first question which
strikes one is as to why the meetings of the executive committee of the union
cannot be held outside the hours of work. It was said that it may not be
possible always do so if an emergency arises. But emergencies are not of
regular occurrence and if there be one, the representatives can certainly
sacrifice one of their earned leave. There can obviously be no difficulty in so
doing. The meetings of the federation and the annual conventions of the
I.N.T.U.C. too can be attended by the union's delegates by availing themselves
of their earned leave.
561 Industrial adjudication, as observed in
1. K. Cotton and Spinning and Weaving Mills v. Badri Mali(1) cannot and should
not ignore the claims of social justice, a concept based on socio-economic
equality, and which endeavours to resolve conflicting claims of employers and
employees by finding not a one-sided but a fair and just solution. A demand for
special leave has, however, nothing to do with any disparities or inequalities
social or economic. On the other hand, too much absenteeism harms both the
employers and the employees inasmuch as it saps industrial economy.
In our view, the Tribunal, on the
considerations aforesaid, was not justified in obliging the appellant company
to grant special leave demanded by the union.
The result is that except for the overtime
rate allowed by the Tribunal which we confirm, the rest of the appeal has to be
allowed and the Tribunal's award set aside. We hold that the award is operative
in respect of the workmen of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and
not the workmen of its other establishments. The demand for special leave
comprised in demand .No. 5 is disallowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Y.P. Appeal allowed in part.
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R.
Back
