http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: INDIAN OXYGEN LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/1968

BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: 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 unio.n  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

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 wo’rkmen  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 a’nd Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin  Chakravorty, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 968, distinguished.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

   (ii)  Under the conditions of service of  the  co.mpany, 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 thereunder, 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  furthern 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 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Malt, [19641 3 S.C.R. 724, referred to.

JUDGMENT: 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  a_appellant company   and  its  workmen  employed  in  the  factory   at Jamshedpur, the com- 553 pany 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

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 state- 554 ment  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 thesaid 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  Uni   , 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 p.ay  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

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 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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

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  amehdments.   The only evidence it produced was its letter dated May 21,  1964

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

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/ndian 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 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 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 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 fo.r the work done beyond  the agreed  hours of wo.rk.  The company would in that  case  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

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,  thcrefore,  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 justifled 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 thwarte  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

                                         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 before hand 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

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. 562