http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SAXBY AND FARMER (INDIA) PVT.  LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/03/1973

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1975 AIR  534            1973 SCR  (3) 830  1974 SCC  (3) 327

ACT: Labour  Law-Company producing essential goods for  railways- Whether  workmen  entitled to unpaid  festival  holidays  in addition to ten paid holidays.

HEADNOTE: The appellant company was a unit of the Engineering Industry in  West Bengal having three factories in various  parts  of Calcutta.  It was solely engaged in the production of brakes and  signalling equipment for the railways.  The  Government of West Bengal declared the appellant to be a public utility service in exercise of power conferred by s. 2(c)(vi) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  and  also  an  ’essential service’ under the Defence of India Rules.. At the  instance of  the  appellant  company the Government  of  West  Bengal referred to the Industrial Tribunal the question whether the nine unpaid festival holidays allowed by the company to  its workmen  in  addition to paid festival  and  other  holidays should  be  continued. The Tribunal, impressed by  the  fact that  unpaid  festival  holidays had  been  enjoyed  by  the workmen  for  a long time gave its award in  favour  of  the workmen. Allowing the company’s appeal, HELD : The Tribunal was wholly oblivious of the present  day conditions  and  the  necessity  for  increased  production, particularly,  in  the matter of utility companies  and  the companies  that are producing goods for  essential  services like  those carried on by the Indian Railways.   This  Court has observed on more than one occasion that it is  generally accepted  that  there are too many public  holidays  in  our country, and that when the need for industrial production is urgent  and  paramount, it may be advisable  to  reduce  the number  of  such holidays in industrial concerns  Indeed  it cannot be disputed that a necessary step in the direction of increasing  the country’s productivity is the  reduction  of number of holidays. There was accordingly no reason or justification for  unpaid holidays  not being curtailed in the present case.  All  the conditions  which were necessary had been satisfied and  the appellant  was carrying on the kind of work  which  requires efficiency and increased production [833E, 834A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal ’No.  1923  of 1968. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March 11,  1968 of  the VIIth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal  Calcutta  in Case No. VIII-287 of 1966 published in the Calcutta  Gazette dated April 18, 1968. D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear.  831 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The appellant company is a unit of the Engineering Industry in  West Bengal having three Factories in various  parts  of Calcutta.   The  company employs about 1650 workmen  in  all these  factories.  According to the appellant, it is  solely engaged in the production of brakes and signalling equipment for  the  railways.   Its  products,  it  is  claimed,   are essential for the smooth working of the railways, which  are its  sole customers.  In order to ensure  smooth  production and  uninterrupted  flow of supply, the government  of  West Bengal declared the appellant to be a public utility service in  exercise  of the power conferred by sub-clause  (vi)  of clause (c) of s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and also  as  ’essential  service’ under the  Defence  of  India Rules.   It is said as a unit of engineering  industry,  the appellant  was a party to certain omnibus major awards  made in 1958 and the earlier awards of 1949  and 1950.  In  these awards, the service conditions, including leave and holidays of  the workmen were standardised.  The appellant  has  been granted  leave  and  holidays as per  those  awards  and  in accordance  with  the provisions of the Factories  Act,  the Shops   and  Establishment  Act  and  the  Employees   State Insurance  Act.  The paid holidays which are  being  granted are ten in a year.  There     used  to  be a system  in  the appellant  company’s  establishment of  granting  nine  days unpaid  festival holidays in addition to the  paid  festival and  other  holidays.  It is pointed out that in  no,  other major industry in the region this system of unpaid  festival holidays is being followed any longer. At the instance of the appellant-company, the government of West  Bengal referred the following issue by an order  dated June 7, 1966 to the industrial tribunal for adjudication. "Curtailment  of unpaid festival holidays".  In the  written statement,  which was filed by the appellant, it was  stated in  para.  8 that the company allows  nine  festival  unpaid holidays, and the continuance of the said holidays would not only  entail loss of wages to the workmen but also  loss  of production  and  would prejudicially  affect  the  country’s economy.   It was also asserted that the system of  granting unpaid  holidays  was  no  longer  being  followed  in   the engineering  industry.  Moreover, other holidays enjoyed  by the  workmen along with the workmen of other  similar  units were far  in excess of what prevails in other countries.      The  union filed a written statement on behalf  of  the workmen.   In  reply,  the position taken up  was  that  the assertion of the com- 832 pany  that the nine unpaid holidays should be  discontinued, was  in  clear  disregard  of  the  principle  and  practice followed  so  far in the matter of giving  benefits  in  the industrial  concerns.   It was said that the  trend  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

decisions  of the Industrial Tribunals in respect  of  major Engineering concerns has always been against the curtailment of  the existing facilities, and that the management of  the appellant-company  had  made an unfair  attempt  to  curtail those  benefits, relating to unpaid festival holidays.   The main  ground  given was that in the interest  of  industrial peace,  production and better relations between the  workmen and  the management, the workmen should be  kept  contented. Any  attempt to curtail the existing benefits  according  to time-honoured practice, would provoke discontent and  labour unrest. Each  side  examined one witness, P.W. 1,  Gobind  Day,  who appeared   on  behalf  of  the  appellant,   supported   the assertions made, in the written statement filed on behalf of the  appellant.  In other words, he stated that 19  holidays were being given to the workers at present, out of which ten were paid holidays and the rest, without pay.  Ten  festival holidays were allowed on the basis of the ,award made by the tribunals.   He  admitted in his cross-examination  that  in Bengal  holidays for certain days like Netaji’s birthday  or for  religious  festivals, were considered  very  essential. O.P.W.1,  who appeared on behalf of the workers and who  was the  working  president  of the Union at the  time  he  gave evidence,  merely  con tented himself by  saying  that  nine unpaid  festival  holidays had been enjoyed by  the  workers since  he  joined  the  factory  and  prior  to  that  time. According  to  him,  even  on  festival  holidays,   workers attended the factory and worked there and drew wages.  Over- time wages were paid at the rate of 150% of the basic wages. The  industrial tribunal does not appear to have  given  any substantial  reasons for coming to the conclusion  that  the unpaid  holidays should not be curtailed.  According to  it, there  was no evidence to show to what extent  the  Railways which  were the sole customers of the company,  depended  on the  company  to  meet  their  requirements.   The  tribunal proceeded to say that the company might be solely engaged in the  production  of signalling equipment, but that  was  not sufficient  to show the nature and extent of the  dependence of  the  Railways  on  the supplies  of  the  company.   The representative  of the company had argued that  because  the number  of  the  holidays  was  large,  the  production  was suffering and the company was unable to meet the demands  of the  Railways in time.  The Tribunal, however, thought  that in the absence of any evidence to that effect, it could  not be  held  that  the  production  was  not  adequate  or  was suffering because of the number of holi-  833 days for the workers.  This is how the Tribunal reasoned  in the matter : "...... in my humble opinion without reducing the number  of important festival holidays of any community in  India-which is  the  home  of different communities  and  religions  the number   of   working  holidays  can  be  increased   as   a compensatory  measure by converting a good many  Sundays  to working days.  I think this is quite a feasible  proposition and  can  be offered as a suggestion to those who  take  the view that as festival and religious holidays are quite large in  number they should be reduced without reference  to  the feelings of the affected religious group or community.   But then  this  is  too wide and too large  a  question  for  my embarkation and perhaps such views will not find favour with the  west  oriented  intellect  and  so-called  cosmopolitan outlook.  Anyway, that I say is that there is no good ground to  cut down the number of festival holidays simply  because the  number  of  overall holidays is  large."  The  tribunal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

appears  to have been impressed by the contention raised  on behalf  of the workmen that they had enjoyed the  facilities for a long time. It  appears  that the tribunal was wholly oblivious  of  the present  day  conditions  and the  necessity  for  increased production, particularly, in the matter of utility companies and  the  companies that are producing goods  for  essential services like those carried on by the Indian Railways.  This Court  has  observed on more than one occasion  that  it  is generally  accepted that there are too many public  holidays in  our  country,  and that when  the  need  for  industrial production, is urgent and paramount, it may be advisable  to reduce  the number of such holidays in industrial  concerns. Indeed,  it cannot be disputed that a necessary step in  the direction  of increasing the country’s productivity  is  the reduction  of number of holidays.   See  Pfizer(P)Ltd.Bombay v.The  Workmen(1)  and  Associated Cement  Staff  Union  and another  v.  Associated  Cement Company  and  others.(2)  In Pfizer’s  case, the holidays. which were being granted  were reduced  to  ten  from the number  which  the  workers  were enjoying  previously  in accordance  with  those  sanctioned under the Negotiable Instruments Act i.e., 16 holidays. (1)  [1963]  Supp. 2 S. C. R. 627, 651.     (2) [1964]  1  L L.J. 12,15. 8 34 On  giving  the  matter careful consideration,  we  find  no reason  ,or  justification  for unpaid  holidays  not  being curtailed in the present case.  All the conditions which are necessary have been satisfied and the appellant is  carrying on the kind of work which requires efficiency and  increased production.  There should be more concentration on  increase of  production and efficiency than on enjoying the  holidays if this country is to march ahead on the road to prosperity. We  would, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside  the award.   In other words, the system of unpaid holidays  will not continue with effect from the 1st January, 1973.   There will be no order as to costs. G.C.                              Appeal allowed’. 835.