Indian Oxygen Ltd. versus Their Workmen

¶1

550

INDIAN OXYGEN LTD.

A

v.

THEIR WORK.\IEN

August 5, 1968

[J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAYA AND C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM, JJ.]

¶8

Industrial Dispute-Joint application to refer dispute-Metnhership of 1vork1nen union thro1vn open-Wlzerlzer au:ard applies to night 1nembers o~vertime-Principles of payment-Absence without leave to attend nreetings etc.-lf permissible. The appellant and it' 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 df workmen employed in the undertaking affected were those employed in the company's factory at Jamsbcdpur, 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 Jamc;hedpur and their workmen represented by Indoxco Labour Union. Two of the demands were (I) payment of overtime to office staff should be l i times the ordinary rate and ( 2) the union represcntativL>s should he allowed special leave to attend law courts for matters connected with the workers and the managemcnl, to atlcnd the annual conventions of their federation, to attend to Executive C.Ommittee meetings of the union-federation and the conventions of the central organisation i.e., INTIJC. The union at a general mceling, held prior to the reference, had passed a resolution changing the name of the union to fodian 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) It times the ordinary wages 'for overtime work exceeding 39 hours but not exceeding 48 hours per week should be paid; and if the O"ertime exceeded 48 hours per week, tbe company would be liable to pay double the ordinary rate of wages; and (iii) the appellant company bacl 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 Jamshcdpur and (d) the convention of tbe INTUC.

B

C

D

E

F

G

In appeal to this Court,

¶17

HELD : (i) The award was operative only in respect of the workmen of the appellant company's factory at Jamshcdpur and not the workmen of its other establishments. [561 C-Dl

¶18

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 lndoxco Labour Union. Under the notification of the Government also the disputes referred ta the Tribunal

¶19

H

¶20

551

¶21

INDIAN OXYGEN v. WORKMEN

¶22

j

¶23

A 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 m the said agreement, any award made by the Tribunal in respect of those disputes mnst necessarily be e-0nfined to the disputes refered to it, the parties to thooe disputes and the parties who had agreed to refer those disputes for adjudication. There is nothing to show in that notification

¶24

B that other workmen <if the company had raised similar demands or that there were any disputes existing or apprehended which were included in that reference. [555 D-G]

¶25

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 Umon Act and regulation 9 of the Central Trade Union Regulation, nor did it c produce any e-0mrnunication 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 <if the company's factory at Jamsbedpur and that consequently it D 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 work- men of the appellant e-0mpany'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]

¶26

E

¶27

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.

¶28

(ii) Under the conditions of service of the company, the total hours o'f work per week were 39 hours. The Bihar Shops and Establishments Act fixes the maximum number of hours of work allowable thereunder, F 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 p'rovisions 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 ~ours 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 com- G pany 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 df work. The company would thus be indirectly increasing the hours of work and consequently altering its condition of service. [558 C-FJ

¶29

If after taking into consideration the fact of the comparatively higher scale of wages prevailing in the appellant company, the Tribunal fixed H e rat for overtime work at 1 t times the ordinary rate df wages, it is 1mposs1ble to say that the Tribunal erred in doing so or acted unjustly.

¶30

(iii) The demand for special leave must be disallowed.

¶31

[!969] J S.C.R.

¶32

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶33

552

¶34

A

¶35

The appellant company has been allowing those of its workmen who :l.J'e the union's representatives to attend without loss of pay proceed.in~ before conciliation officers and industrial tribunals. In coaccding: the demand of the union foi:, more lca.vc the l'ribunal does not appear 10 have considered the adverse effect on the company's production if further absentccisn1 were to be allowed especially \·hen 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 kno\•ing how many delegates the union would end to attend the conventions of the federation and the INTUC. The ·rribunal could not in the very nature of things pecify or limit the number of such meetings for such an attempt would amount to intetfcrence in the administration of the union and its autonomy. Its order must of necessity, therefore, have to he indefinite with the result that the appellant company would not know before hand 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 cslablishmcnt, the repfcscntatives of all such tmions would also have to be given such leave to attend the aforesaid meeting.. 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 \·ork should be considered. It was said that it may not be PoSliible ahvays to do so if an emcrency arises. But emergencies are not of regular occurrence and if there be one, the reprcsenlatives can certainly sacrifice one of their earned leave. Similarly the meetings of the federation and the annual conventions of the INl't..:C too can be attended by the union's delegates by availing themselves Of their earned leave. 1559 [).E; 560 C-H]

¶36

!. K. Co/1011 u11d Spi11ni11g and W<e01•i11g Mills v. Badri Mali, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 724, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1966.

¶37

Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 28, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar in Reference No. 32 of 1963.

B

c

D

E

F

A. C. Mitra and D. N. Gupta, for the apPellant.

¶44

0. P. Sharma and V. C. Parashar, for the respondents.

¶45

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶46

Shela!, J. This appeal, by special leave, is against the award dated September 28, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna. ·

¶47

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.

¶48

G

¶49

H

¶50

Certain disputes having arisen between the appellant company and its workmen employed in the factory at Jamshcdpur, the com·

¶51

INDIAN OXYGEN V. WORKMEN (Shelat, /.)

¶52

553

¶53

A pany and the said workmen represented by thei~ union call.ed ~e Indoxco Labour Union, Jamshedpur, made a 1omt applica110n 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

¶54

B in this appeal with only two disputes arising from demands Nos. 3 and 5. These demands were,

¶55

No. 3. "The payment of overtime to office staff should be 1 t times the ordinary rate beyond their normal duty hours."

¶56

No. 5. "Union representatives should be allowed c special leave to a1tend to law courts for matters connected with the workers and the management, to attend to annual conventions of their federation, to attend to Executive Colllllli1tee meeting of the union-federation and convention of central organisation i.e., INTUC."

¶57

As required by r. 3 of the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules,

¶58

D 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 contained inter a/ia the following information, namely,

¶59

" ( c) Number of workmen employed in the under-

¶60

taking affected

¶61

E

¶62

352

¶63

( d) Estimated number of workmen affected or likely to be affected by the dispute 352"

¶64

F It is quite clear 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.

¶65

The said notification also stated "Whereas the Governor of

¶66

G 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 sec-

¶67

H tion 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 state-

[1969) J S.C.R.

554

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶72

moot and were between the management of the appellant company 's factory at J amshedpur and their workmen represented by the lndoxco Labour Union.

¶73

It appears, however, that the union at its general meeting held on January 6, 1963, purported to amend its constitution by " resolution passed thereat by changing the name of the union to Indian Oxygen Workers Union Jnd 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 J amshedpur of the said purported amendment. The Tribunal appears 1o 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 Jndoxco Labour Union does not materially affect the posi'tion that the dispute raised by the union is in rc'pect 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 It times the ordinary wages for overtime work exceed in~ 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, (I ) a letter by the General Secretary of 1he Tata Workers Union, (Ext. I) dated November 30, 1963, wherein it was stated that the officials of that union were granted soecial leave to attend the union's executive committee meetings, the meetings of their federation and the meetings of the J.N.T.U.C. if held al Jamshedpur; (2) a letter dated January 25, 1964 by the General Secretary of Golmuri Tinplate Workers Union, Jamshedpur, to the effect that member; 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 Jetter 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

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

INDIAN OXYGEN v. WORKMEN (She/at, J.)

¶84

555

¶85

A had been allowing without loss of pay the representatives of the workmen to attend proceedings bef?re onciliatio!l officers and Industrial Tribunals. This concess10n, 1t considered, was sufficient and, therefore, rejected the demand for special leave :ovit pay to attend the law courts. But it awarded that the uruon s representatives should be given special leav~ to attend (1) mi:et-

¶86

B ings of its executive commit1ee, (2) meetmgs of the federat10n 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.

¶87

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 J amshedpur factory but also c to workmen at its other establishments and that in doing so it acted beyond jurisdiction. In our view, tills contention must be upheld. ·

¶88

,

¶89

In the first place, the agreement by wltich the parties agreed

¶90

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 accomping 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

¶91

E 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 disputes and further that they were the disputes between the parties to that agreement. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that sUnilar demands were raised by workmen engaged in the appellant company's other establishments. Even assuming that the Indoxco Labour Union validly amended its

¶92

F 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 confip.ed to the disputes referred to it, the parties to those disputes and the parties

¶93

G who had agreed to refer those disputes for adjudication.

¶94

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 J amshedpur came henceforth to be represented by the Indian Oxygen Workers' Union whlch represented also H 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

¶95

[I 969] I S.C.R.

¶96

556

¶97

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶98

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 ad the workmn 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 he Tribun.al b:t the said notifica1ion. There is nothing to show m tat notilication that other workmen of the company had raised smular demands or that there were any disputes existing or apprehended which were included in that reference.

¶99

A

¶100

n

¶101

The question next is whether the union's constitution was dulv amended on January 6, 1963 as claimed by the union and held by the Tribunal. The constitution of the union prior to its purc ported amendment contained amongst other Articles, Articles I and 3. These Articles read as follows :

¶102

"ARTICLE NO. I : Name and Address :

¶103

I. This Union is a Trade Union Organisation of wage earners of the Indian Oxygen & Acetylene Co. D Ltd., Jamshedpur and shall be called Indoxco Labour Union ....

¶104

!he 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."

¶105

Article XII of the said constitution deals with alteration of rules and cl. ( c) 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 F Trade Unions Act, 1926. This rule had to be incorporated in the constitution in view of the express tenns of that section.

¶106

.

¶107

Section 6 of the Trade Unions Act provides that a trade union would not be entitled to registration under the Act unless the executive hereof is constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the rules thereof provide amongst other things for G its name and the manner in which the rules shall be amended, varied or rescinded. Section 28 (3) provides that a copy oi every alteration made in the rules of a registered trade union shall be .sent to the Reoistrar 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 with11 out prejudice to the generality of the powef in sb-s. (I) such regulations may provide inter a/ia f~r the manner. m which trade unions and their rules shall be registered. Sectton 30 ( 3) lays

¶108

I

¶109

INDIAN OXYGEN v. WORKMEN (She/at, J.) 557

¶110

A down that regulations so made shall be published i1:1 the of!ici~l gazette and on such publication shall have effect as 1f e!1acted m 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 umon under s. 28 (3), the Registrar shall register the alteratioµ in the register maintained

¶111

B for this purpose and shall notify the fact that he has done so to· the secretary of the trade union.

¶112

The combined effect of secs. 6(g), 28(3), 29 and 30(3) and

¶113

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

¶114

c 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

¶115

D 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

¶116

E 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 J amshedpur and that consequently it made no difference that the name of Indoxco Labour Union as representing the

¶117

F W<;>rkmen 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 work1:11e!1 ~n .the company's other establishments was clearly without

¶118

G 1unsd1ctton. The decisions in The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen(') 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.

¶119

As regards the Tribunal's finding on demand No. 3, counsel H for the company raised two contentions : ( 1) that the company's factory at J amshedpur having been declared an establishment --~(l) [1960) 3 S.C.R. l 57. (2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 968.

¶120

(l 969) 1 s.c.R.

¶121

558

¶122

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶123

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 rnte 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 <>vertime rates paid by other concerns in Jamshedpur before the Tribunal showed that if the company were made to pay I! times its ordinary rate of wages it would, in the light of its higher scale ·of wages be paying more than the other concerns.

¶124

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 thereunder, 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 arc 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 were 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.

¶125

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 It Umes 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 appel!ant company the Tribunal fixed the rate for overtime work at U times the ordinary rate of wages, it is impossible to say that the Tribunal erred in doing so or act~ unjustly. The company's contention, therefore, as regards this ·demand must be rejected.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

INDIAN OXYGEN v. WORKMEN (She/at, !.)

¶135

559·

¶136

-~

¶137

•

¶138

A 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 l.N.T.U.C. over and above the various types of leave available to the company's workB men 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 c of trade union movement and the promotion of harmony in indus-· trial 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.

¶139

We apprehend the argument does not take into consideration D certain important aspects of the demand. As aforesaid, the apPelIant 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. This is fair because conciliation proceedings are likely to get thwarte if the workmen's representatives are not there to discuss the disE putes 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 : . F Factory Staff : Earned leave 21 Festival leave 1 O Casual leave 7 Medical leave 15 G 53 Office Staff : Earned leave 21 Festival leave 17 H Casual leave 7 Medical leave 15 60

--

[1969] I S.C.R.

560

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶144

General Staff:		A
Earnedleave	15
Festival leave	17
Casual leave	7
Medical leave	15	B
	54

¶145

It is impossible to say that the ]eave 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 c 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 D 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 autoE nomy. Its order must of necessity, therefore, have to be indefinite with the result that the appellant company would not know before hand on how many occasions and to how many of its workmen 1t 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 F -such leave to attend the aforesaid meetings.

¶146

c

¶147

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 all 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 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. There can obviously be no difficulty in so doing. The meetings of the federation and the annual conventions of the l.N.T.U.C. too can be attended bv the union's delegates by availing themselves of their earned leave.

¶148

G

¶149

H

¶150

INDIAN OXYGEN v. WORKMEN (She/at, J.)

¶151

561

¶152

..

¶153

A Industrial adjudication, as observed in J. K. Cotton and Spinning and Weaving Mills v. Badri Mali(') cannot and should not ignore the claims of social justice, a concept based on socio-economie 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

¶154

B 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.

¶155

C 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 J amshedpur and not the workmen of its other establishments. The demand for special leave comprised in demand o No. 5 is disallowed. There will be no order as to costs .

¶156

C

¶157

•

¶158

Y.P.

¶159

Appeal allowed in part .

¶160

•

¶161

(!) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 724.

Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Their Workmen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Their Workmen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand & Ors. versus Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains Kirana Merchants Workers Union & Anr.

Hiralal Agrawal, etc. versus Rampadarath Singh & Ors., etc.

Suresh Koshy George versus the University of Kerala & Ors.

G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad versus the Labour Court, Allahabad

Cricket Club of India Ltd. versus the Bombay Labour Union & Another

Workmen of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Brajrajnagar versus M/S. Orient Paper Mills Ltd.