http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: M/S.  TATA  IRON & STEEL CO.  LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE WORKMEN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/05/1972

BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 1917            1973 SCR  (1) 594  1972 SCC  (1) 383  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1973 SC1156  (11)  RF         1973 SC2155  (11,12)  D          1975 SC1856  (10)  R          1982 SC 854  (9)

ACT: The  Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act  (46  of 1948),  s.  5 and Item 7 of 111  Schedule-Coal  Mines  Bonus Scheme providing for a quasi judicial authority to decide on legality  of strikes-If ultra vires  Delegated  legislation, limits of. Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 9A and IV Schedule- Change of rest days from Sunday to another day-No notice  to workmen-If legal.

HEADNOTE: The  Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme  Act,  1948, was  enacted  for  making provision for  the  framing  of  a provident fund scheme and bonus scheme for persons  employed in  coal mines.  Section 5 of the Act empowers  the  Central Government  to frame the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme  which  may provide  for  all or any of the matters-specified  in  third schedule  to  the Act.  Item 7 of the  schedule  extends  to matters which may be necessary or proper for the purpose  of implementing the Scheme. Paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme provides for  the effect of participation in an illegal strike, and, in case a dispute arises as to whether the strike is illegal or  legal for the purpose of the scheme, which authority and according to what procedure, is to decide that dispute. In 1963, due to shortage of power, the appellant decided  to stagger  weekly rest days in all its collieries.  In one  of them,  Wednesday, and in another, Thursday, were  introduced as  rest  days instead of Sundays.  The change was  to  take effect  from September 22, which was a Sunday.  The  workmen failed to turn up for work on that Sunday as well as on  the next Sunday, September 29.  When they turned up for work  on Wednesday,  September  25, at one colliery and  on  Thursday September  26,  at the other colliery they  were  told  that those  days  were weekly rest days and on that  ground  they were   not  given  any  work.   The  appellant  filed   four applications  before the Regional Labour  Commissioner,  who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

was  the  authority  under para 8 of the  Coal  Mines  Bonus Scheme for a declaration that there was an illegal strike by the  workmen on the Sundays on which they failed to turn  up for work.  The respondents filed two applications before the same authority stating that there was an illegal lockout  on September  25  and  September  26  at  the  two   collieries respectively.   The  Regional Labour  Commissioner  held  in favour of the workmen that there was no illegal strike.  The order  was  confirmed in appeal by  the  Central  Industrial Tribunal and in writ petitions, by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that : (1) para  8 of  the Scheme creating a quasi judicial tribunal was  ultra vires and that such a tribunal could only be created by  the Legislature;  and (2) that change in the rest days  did  not effect  any change in the conditions of service of  Workmen in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence notice of change of  rest  days to workmen under s. 9A of that  Act  was  not necessary. Dismissing the appeal. HELD   :  (1)  (a)  The  increasing  complexity  of   modern administrations  and  the need for  flexibility  capable  of rapid readjustment to meet the changing circumstances, which cannot always be foreseen, in implementing the socioeconomic policy, pursuant to the establishment of a welfare state  as contemplated   by   the  Constitution,  have   rendered   it convenient,,  practical and necessary, for the  legislatures to  have  frequent  resort to  the  practice  of  delegating subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their choice. Parliamentary procedure and discussion in getting through  a legislative  measure  is time-consuming, and  such  measures cannot  provide  for all possible  contingencies  since  one cannot  visualise the various permutations and  combinations of  human  conduct  and behaviour.  But  the  delegation  of legislative  power is permissible only when the  legislative policy  and  principle  is  adequately  laid  down  and  the delegate  is  Only  empowered to carry  out  the  subsidiary policy  within the guidelines laid down by the  legislature. The  legislature cannot abdicate its authority  and’  cannot pass   to   some   other  body  the   obligation   and   the responsibility  imposed on it by the Constitution.   It  can only utilise other bodies or authorities for the purpose  of working out the details within the essential principles laid (town  by  it.  Therefore, it has to be seen if there  is  a delegation of the essential legislative ’function, or if  it is merely a case in which some authority or body, other than the legislature, is empowered to work out the subsidiary and ancilliary  details within the essential guidelines,  policy and  principles  laid down by the legislative  wing  of  the Government. [603H; 604A-E] (b)In the present case, the relevant schedule read with s. 5  of  the, Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus  Scheme  Act clearly  lays down the policy and principle for framing  the scheme.   Paragraph  8 of the scheme is a matter  of  detail which is subsidiary or ancilliary to the main purpose of the legislative  measure for implementing the scheme.   It  par- takes  of  the  character  of  subordinate  legislation   on ancilliary  matters within the conditions laid down  in  the Act by s. 5 read with the relevant schedule.  Paragraph 8 of the scheme is accordingly valid and cannot be considered  to amount to excessive delegation of legislative power. [604E-H] (2)(a)  Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947, provides that noemployer  who  proposes  to  effect  any change in the conditions of serviceapplicable  to   any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

workman  in  respect of any matter specified in  the  Fourth Schedule  shall effect such change without giving notice  to the  workmen  likely to be affected by such  change  in  the prescribed manner.  Items 4. 5 and 8 of the Fourth  Schedule refer to hours of work and rest intervals, leave with  wages and  holidays and withdrawal of any customary concession  or privilege or change ’in usage; respectively.  The expression ’hours of work and Test interval.,;’ and ’leave’ with  wages and  holidays’ are wide enough to cover the case of  illegal strikes  and  rest  days.   The  expression  ’withdrawal  of customary  concession  or privilege or change in  usage’  is also  wide  enough  to take within its fold  the  change  of weekly  holidays from Sunday to some other day of the  week. [604H; 605A-C] (b)The real object and purpose of the section is to afford an opportunity to the workmen to consider the effect of  the proposed change and. if necessary, to represent their  point of  view on the proposal.  Such consultation further  serves to stimulate   timulate   a feeling of common joint interest of  the  management and workmen in industrial  progress  and increased  productivity.  This approach on the part  of  the industrial   employer  would  reflect  his  harmonious   and sympathetic cooperation in improving the status and  dignity of   the   industrial  employee  in  accordance   with   the egalitarian   and  progressive  trend  of   our   industrial jurisprudence which  596 strives  to  treat capital and labour as co-sharers  and  to break  away from the tradition of labour’s  subservience  to capital.   In  order  to  effectively  achieve  the   object underlying  s. 9A, it would be more appropriate to place  on the  Fourth  Schedule  read with s.  9A  of  the  Industrial Disputes Act a construction liberal enough to include change of  weekly  rest days from Sundays to some other  week  day. [605F-H] (c)It  is no doubt true that whether the paid day of  rest is  Sunday or some other week day would cause  no  financial loss to the workmen.  But financial benefit cannot be  said to  be the sole criterion in considering the  question.   It should  not  be  ignored that due to long  usage  and  other factors Sunday as a holiday may for conceivable reasons have assumed importance for workmen and it may also have  special significance  because,  on Sunday, when their  school  going children  have a holiday, the entire family may be  able  to take  part in recreational or other social activities.  [605 C-F] (d)Sections  2(f), 52 and 63 of the Factories  Act,  1948, also  fortify  the  view  that  it  is  not  immaterial   or unimportant whether workmen are given a Sunday or some other week day as a weekly rest day., [606A-C] (3)The  appellant  having thus effected a  change  in  the weekly  days of rest without complying with s. 9A read  with the  Fourth  Schedule,  the  change  must  be  held  to   be ineffective and the previous schedule of weekly day% of rest must  be  held  to  be  still  operative.   Therefore,   the appellant’s  contention  that  the  workmen  concerned   had resorted  to illegal strike on September 22 and 29, must  be rejected, and the respondents’ contention that the appellant had illegally declined to give work to them on September  25 and  26  and that the appellant had declared a lock  out  on those  two  days which was illegal, has to  be  upheld.   No doubt,  mere refusal to give work does not by itself  amount to  lock-out;  but in the present case, when  the  employers closed  the two collieries respectively on September 25  and 26 they knew that this change in the weekly days of rest was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

not acceptable to a considerable section of the workmen  who had  not come to work on Sunday, September 22.  The  closure of  collieries  on  the  two  days  in  question  was   thus deliberate.   Coal  having been declared  a  public  utility service  and notice of closure at contemplated by S., 22  of the Industrial Disputes Act not having been given, the  lock out was illegal under s. 24 of the Act. [606F-H; 607 A-B]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  991  and 996 of 1968. Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 16,  1966 of  the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Judicial  Cases  Nos. 349 of 1965. G.P.  Pai,  R.  C.  Prasad and  O.  C.  Mathur,  for  the appellant (in all the appeals). Janardan Sharma, for respondent No. 1 (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua,  J.-These  six appeals on certificate  granted  by  the Patna High Court in two separate judgments disposing of  six civil writ petitions raise common questions of fact and  law and will, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. The  appellant owns six collieries, but we are concerned  in the  present controversy only with two  collieries,  namely, Sijua  ’and  Bhelatand.   Due  to  shortage  of  power,  the appellant decid- 597 ed  to stagger the weekely rest days in all the  collieries. By a notice dated September 10, 1963 a new schedule of  rest days, was introduced in accordance with which Sijua colliery was  to  have every Wednesday as a rest day and  Bhelat  and colliery every Friday as a rest day.  With respect to Bhelat and  colliery Friday was later changed to Thursday.   It  is common ground that previously Sunday was the weekly rest day in all the six collieries.  The change in the weekly days of rest was to take effect from September 15, 1963 which was  a Sunday.   The workers of the collieries did not turn up  for work   on   Sunday  September  15,  as  a   result   whereof negotiations were held between the appellant and some of the workmen represented by the Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and it was agreed  that  the  new  schedule  would  take  effect   from September  22, 1963.  It may here be pointed out  that  the- respondents  in these appeals, who were also respondents  in the  High  Court in the six writ petitions, are  members  of another  union called the Congress Mazdoor Sangh  which  was not  a party to that agreement.  The said agreement was  not given  full  effect, with the result that on  September  22, 1963,  again,  the workers did not turn up for work  in  the collieries.  The appellant thereupon filed two  applications under sub-para (1) of para 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus  Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) before the  Regional Labour  Commissioner  for a declaration that there,  was  an illegal strike on September 22, 1963.  Even after  September 22,  1963,  the controversy between the  appellant  and  the workmen  continued and on Wednesday, September 25, 1963  the workmen  went  to Sijua Colliery for  work.   The  appellant refused  to give them any work on the plea  that  Wednesday was a weekly day of rest in that colliery.  Similarly,  when the  workmen  went  on  Thursday,  September  26,  1963   to Bhelatand Colliery they were told that Thursday was a weekly rest  day and on this ground they were not given  any  work. Shri B. N. Sharma, President of the Congress Mazdoor  Sangh, Bihar,  Jorapokhar,  Dhanbad, on behalf of  the  workmen  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

Sijua  and  Bhelatand  Collieries,  filed  two  applications before  the  Regional  Labour  Commissioner  (C),   Dhanbad, stating  that there was illegal lock-out of the  workers  of Sijua  Colliery on September 25, 1963 and of the workers  of Bhelatand  Colliery on September 26, 1963 and that the  said lock-outs  should  be declared,illegal for the  purposes  of the, scheme. The  Regional  Labour Commissioner decided  the  two  appli- cations filed by Shri B. N. Sharma in respect of the alleged lock-out of workers of Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries by  an order dated November 22, 1963 and held that the  non-working of  Sijua Bhelatand Collieries on September 25 and 26,  1963 respectively  was due to a lock-out, which was  illegal  for pur- 598 poses  of  the  Scheme.   It may be  pointed  out  that  the appellant had also filed four more applications relating  to the failure of the workmen to work on September 15 and 29 in the   two  collieries  which  means  that  there  were   six applications   before  the  Regional   Labour   Commissioner (Central),   Dhanbad   filed  by   the   appellant   seeking declaration   that  the  workers  of  Sijua  and   Bhelatand Collieries  had resorted to strike on September 15,  22  and 29, 1963 which should be declared as illegal for purposes of the Scheme.  The applications relating to the strike on Sep- tember 15, 1963 both at Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries being declared  as  illegal were later withdrawn in  view  of  the agreement  dated  September 18, 1963, with the  result  that only  four  applications by the  appellant  were  ultimately adjudicated upon by the Regional Labour Commissioner who, by an  order dated November 14, 1964, gave a  declaration  that there  was  no strike, much less an illegal strike,  by  the workers  on September 22 and 29, 1963.  This conclusion  was arrived  at on the basis of the finding that change  in  the weekly days of rest was not in accordance with law. The  appellant appealed to the Central Industrial  Tribunal, Dhanbad  in  all  the  six  matters,  but  without  success. Aggrieved  by these decisions, the appellant approached  the Patna  High Court by means of six writ petitions which  were disposed  of by two separate orders both dated November  16, 1966.   In one judgment, the High Court dealt with the  four writ  petitions  complaining of illegal strike  and  in  the other  with  the two writ petitions complaining  of  illegal lock-out.   The  High  Court  upheld  the  decision  of  the Regional   Labour  Commissioner  as  also  of  the   Central Industrial  Tribunal  on appeal, and dismissed all  the  six writ  petitions.   It  is in these  circumstances  that  the present six appeals Iron & Steel Company Limited. The principal question which requires consideration though Its  importance, as pointed out by both sides, lies  in  the fact  that  the Bonus provided under the Scheme  depends  on attendance  and if it is held that the workers had  resorted to illegal strike, then they would be deprived of bonus for a  quarter of the year.  The main argument raised on  behalf of the appellant centres round the construction to be placed on  s.  9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV  of  1947 (hereinafter called the Act), which deals with the notice of change in the conditions of service ’applicable to a workman in  respect of matters specified in the Fourth  Schedule  to the  Act.   If  notice  contemplated  by  this  section  was necessary,  which admittedly was not given, then the  change in  the new schedule of rest days was not according  to  law and the workers  599 were, justified in ignoring the change.  Sections 9A and  9B

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

alone  constitute Chapter II-A which was introduced  in  the Act  by means of Act no. 36, of 1955 which came into  effect on March 10, 1957.  These two sections read as under :- 9A.  "Notice of change: No employer, who proposes to  effect any  chance in the conditions of service applicable  to  any workman  in  respect of any matter specified in  the  Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change- (a)  without giving to the workmen likely to be affected  by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the  nature of the change proposed to be effected; or (b)  within twenty  one days of giving such notice  Provided               that no notice shall be required for effecting               any such change- (a)  where  the  change  is effected  in  pursuance  of  and settlement,  award  or decision of  the  Appellate  Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950; or (b)  where  the workmen likely to be affected by the  change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil  Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)  Rules, Civil  Services  (Temporary Service)  Rules,  Revised  Leave Rules,  Civil  Service  Regulations,  Civilians  in  Defence Services  (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or  the Indian  Railway  Establishment Code or any  other  rules  or regulations  that  may  be notified in this  behalf  by  the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply. 9B.  Power  of Government to exempt: Where  the  appropriate Government  is  of  opinion  that  the  application  of  the provisions  of  section  9A  to  any  class  of   industrial establishments  or to any class of workmen employed  in  any industrial  establishment affect the employers  in  relation thereto  so  prejudicially that such application  may  cause serious   repercussion   on  the  industry   concerned   and Government  may,  by notification in the  Official  Gazette, direct  that  the provisions of the said section  shall  not apply  or shall apply, subject to such conditions as may  be specified  in the notification, to that class of  industrial establishments  or to that class of workmen employed in  any industrial establishment." 600 According to the appellant, there was no change in the  con- ditions  of service applicable to the workmen in respect  of any  item  falling  in the Fourth Schedule.   Here,  we  may reproduce  only three items out of eleven contained  in  the Fourth   Schedule   because  according  to   the   arguments ’ addressed  at  the bar, these were the only  three  entries considered to be relevant.  These entries are nos. 4, 5  and 8 and they read as under 4.   Hours of work and rest intervals; 5.   Leave-with wages and holidays; and 8.   Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege  or change in usage". The  arguments  forcibly pressed by Shri Pai in  this  Court broadly speaking, proceeded thus : The  change in the schedule of rest days did not effect  any change  in  the  conditions of  service  applicable  to  any workman  in  respect of any matter specified in  the  Fourth Schedule.  It was due to an emergency created by  unforeseen circumstances  beyond the appellant’s control  resulting  in power  shortage that the appellant was compelled to  stagger the weekly days of rest in the six collieries, including the two collieries concerned in these appeals.  The basic  cause as  disclosed in ’annexure A’ to the writ petition was  that on account of heavy percolation of water, power off take  to the  colleries had reached its peak and the power-house  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

no  more  able to cope with  the additional  requirements. Further  running  of  the  power-house  in  the   overloaded condition  was  also likely to result in break-down  at  the power station, thereby totally cutting off the power supply. For  this reason it became absolutely necessary  to  stagger the  weekly days of rest in the six collieries and  also  in the Coal Washery at Jamadoba.  By staggering the weekly days of rest, according to the argument, the daily load of power was intended to be reduced on the power station.  There  was no  financial  loss  to the workers because it  was  only  a change  of weekly rest day from Sunday to Wednesday  in  one colliery  and  from Sunday to Thursday in the  other.   This change in the weekly rest days remained subject to the  same conditions  of service.  The workers were under the  changed schedule  entitled  to one and half time  the  wages,  where applicable,  only it called to work on the newly fixed  days of  rest.   As it was an emergency measure which was  to  be short-lived, it was physically impossible to give notice  of 21  days  as  contemplated by cl. (b) of  s.  9A.   In  this connection  emphasis was laid on the fact that on  September 27,  1963 a "General Notice" was issued by  the  appellant’s Chief  Mining Inspector, Shri R. N. Sharma,  notifying  that the  defects  at  the  Power  House  had  been  successfully attended to with the result that old schedule of working was

601 restored.   In any event, the staggering of weekly  days  of rest, Contended Shri Pai, did not fall under any item of the Fourth  Schedule to the Act.  The counsel explained that  it could  not  fall under item 4 because the  expression  "rest intervals"  contemplates intervals during the working  hours in the course of a single day and not the weekly rest days : it  could also not fall under item 5 because the  change  in question  has  nothing to do with either holidays  or  leave with  wages : item 8 would also be inapplicable  because  it did not amount to withdrawal of any customary concession  or privilege or to change in usage. The  appellant, as a subsidiary point, also  challenged  the vires  of  para 8 of- the Scheme contending that  this  para creates  a quasi-judicial Tribunal and such a  Tribunal  can only  be created by the legislature and not by an  executive flat  and  that s. 5 of the Coal Mines  Provident  Fund  and Bonus  Schemes  Act (No. 46 of 1948), which  authorises  the Central Government to frame the Scheme, does not empower the Central   Government,  either  expressly  or  by   necessary implication, to create such a Tribunal.  This challenge  was pressed with some force and wag also elaborated though it is interesting to note that it was the appellant company itself which approched the regional Labour Commissioner under  this very paragraph for relief by means of four applications  and on   feeling  aggrieved  by  the  adverse  orders   of   the Commissioner in these four matters and in the two matters in which   the  appellant  had  unsuccessfully  contested   the workmen’s  applications  seeking  declaration  of  ill.-,gal lock-outs  on September 25 and 26, 1963, took these  matters on  appeal to the Central Industrial Tribunal.   Instead  of ignoring these Tribunals or questioning the legality of  the appointment  of the Regional Labour Commissioner and of  the Central   Industrial   Tribunal,  the   appellant,   it   is noteworthy,  preferred  to  take  the  chance  of  obtaining favourable orders from them. All these arguments were countered on behalf of the  respon- dents  and it was contended that the appellant had from  the very  inception visualized the difficulties created  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

heavy percolation of water to last for a period of six weeks as  would be clear from the appellant’s notice.  If that  be so,  then, it is futile to contend that the emergency  being short-lived,  21  days’  notice could not be  given  by  the appellant.  But assuming that the emergency was short  lived and there was ’a difficulty in giving the requisite  notice, the  appellant,  which is a prosperous concern,  could  have paid wages to the workers and laid them off for one day in a week  in order to avoid over-loading of the  power  station. This would have in any event served to promote the  goodwill and  harmonious co-operation between the management and  the labour, ultimately leading to more helpful understanding  of the common difficulties -Ll52SuppCI/73 602 facing the industry, in the prosperity of which both of them as  co-sharers should feel equally interested.   This  would accord with the industrial jurisprudence as it has developed in  our country since 1950 under inspiration from the  broad guidelines  afforded by the industrial relations  policy  as envisaged  in our Constitution.  In so far as the  items  of the  Fourth Schedule to the Act are concerned, according  to the  respondents,  Sunday as a weekly rest  day,  was  being granted to the workers of these two collieries as indeed  it was being granted to the workers of all the collieries owned by  the  appellant,  on the basis of old  usage  within  the contemplation  of item no. 8. This matter also falls  within the  expression  "rest  interval"’  used  in  item  no.   4, proceeded  the contention, because the subject of "hours  of work  and  rest intervals" contemplated by  this  entry  can reasonably be construed to include both "daily hours of work and  rest  intervals"  and "weekly hours of  work  and  rest intervals".   Besides, the question of weekly rest days  can also  fall  within  item no. 5 because  it  is  inextricably connected  with  the  question of holidays  and  leave  with wages,  the  weekly  rest day being a  holiday  with  wages. Paragraph 8 of the Scheme, according to the respondents,  is also  intra vires because item no. 7 of the  third  schedule read  with S. 5 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund  and  Bonus Schemes  Act,  1948 contemplates that the  Scheme  can  also provide  for any matter which may be necessary or pro-.  per for  the  purpose of implementing the Scheme.   Now  if  any dispute  arises about the payment of bonus depending on  the attendance  of an employee in accordance with the  terms  of the Scheme, then, according to item 7 of the Third Schedule, settlement of such a dispute may legitimately be  considered to  be necessary or proper for the purpose  of  implementing the  Scheme.   Constitution of a Tribunal  and  laying  down procedure  for  the proceedings before such a  Tribunal  for adjudicating  upon  such a dispute would, according  to  the respondents,  contention, fall within item no. 7 and  would, therefore, be intra vires. Dealing with the last point first, the Coal Mines  Provident Fund  and  Bonus  Scheme Act, 46  of  1948,  was  originally enacted for making provision for the framing of a  Provident Fund  Scheme and Bonus Scheme for persons employed  in  coal mines.  in 1971 the Purpose of this Act was extended to  the framing of a family bonus Scheme but that amendment does not concern us. 603 Section  5  of this Act empowers the Central  Government  to frame the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme which may provide for  all or  any  of  the matters specified in  the  Third  Schedule. (Prior  to the amendment of 1971 this Schedule was  numbered as Second Schedule).  This Schedule reads :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

             "     THE THIRD SCHEDULE               (See Section 5)               Matters to be provided for in the Coal Mines               Bonus Scheme               1.    The  payment of bonus dependent  on  the               attendance of an employee during any period.               2.    The employees or class of employees  who               shall  be  eligible  for  the  bonus  and  the               conditions of eligibility.               3.    The  rate  at which the bonus  shall  be               payable to an employee and the manner in which               the bonus shall be calculated.               4.    The  conditions under which an  employee               may  be  debarred from getting  the  bonus  in               whole or in part.               5.    The  rate  at which sums  shall  be  set               apart  by the employer for payment  of  bonus,               and the time and manner of such payment.               6.    The   registers   and  records   to   be               maintained  by the employer or contractor  and               the returns to be furnished by him.               6A.  The transfer, by an employer to the  Fund               or  any  other fund specified by  the  Central               Government,  of the amount of bonus  remaining               unpaid or unclaimed for a period of six months               from the end of the quarter to which the bonus               relates   and   the  extinguishment   of   the               employer’s  liability to his employee  to  the               extent of the amount so transferred.               7.    Any other matter which is to be provided               for  in the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme  or  which               may be necessary or proper for the purpose  of               implementing that Scheme." Item no. 7, it may be noticed, extends to matters which  may be  necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing  the Scheme. Now, the increasing complexity of modern administration  and the  need for flexibility capable of rapid  readjustment  to meet     changing  circumstances,  which  cannot  always   be foreseen, in implementing our socioeconomic policy, pursuant to  the establishment of a welfare State as contemplated  by our Constitution, 604 have  rendered it convenient and practical, nay,  necessary, for the legislatures to have frequent resort to the practice of delegating subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their  choice,.  The parliamentary procedure and  discussion in getting through a legislative measure in the legislatures is  usually  time-consuming.  Again, such  measures  cannot- provide  for all possible contingencies because  one  cannot visualize  various  permutations and combinations  of  human conduct  and  behaviour.  This explains  the  necessity  for delegated or conditional legislation.  Due to the  challenge of  the  complex  socioeconomic  problems  requiring  speedy solution  the  power  of delegation has by now,  as  per  in necessity, become a constituent element of legislative power as  a whole.  The legal position as regards the  limitations on  this  power  is,  however,  no  longer  in  doubt.   The delegation  of legislative power, is permissible  only  when the legislative policy and principle is adequately laid down and  the  delegate  is  only  empowered  to  carry  out  the subsidiary  policy  within the guidelines laid down  by  the legislature.   The  legislature, it must be borne  in  mind, cannot  abdicate  its authority and cannot pass on  to  some other body the obligation and the responsibility imposed  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

it by the Constitution.  It can only utilise other bodies or authorities  for  the, purpose of working  out  the  details within  the essential principles laid down by it.   In  each case, therefore, it has to be seen it there is delegation of the essential legislative function or if it is merely a Case in  which some authority or body other than the  legislature is  empowered  to  work out  the  subsidiary  and  ancillary details   within   the  essential   guidelines,   policy-and principles,  laid  down  by  the  legislative  wing  of  the Government.  In the present case the relevant schedule  read with s. 5 of Act No. 46 of 1948 clearly lays down the policy and  the  principle for framing the Scheme.  Para 8  of  the Coal   Mines  Bonus  Scheme  provides  for  the  effect   of participation  in  illegal  strike and, in  case  a  dispute arises  as to whether a strike is legal or illegal  for  the purposes  of the scheme, which authority, and  according  to what  procedure,  is to decide that dispute.  This,  in  our view, is a matter of detail which is subsidiary or ancillary to   the  main  purpose  of  the  legislative  measure   for implementing  the Scheme.  It partakes of the  character  of subordinate legislation on ancillary matters falling  within the  conditions laid down in the aforesaid Act by s. 5  read with  the  relevant  Schedule.   Para 8  of  the  Scheme  is accordingly  valid and it cannot be considered to amount  to excessive delegation of legislative power.  The challenge on this score is, therefore, devoid of merit. We  now come to the main contention.  Section 9A  which  has already  been  reproduced,  lays down  that  change  in  the conditions of service in respect of any matter specified  in the Fourth Schedule shall not have effect unless a notice is given to the workmen 605 likely to be affected by such change.  The relevant  entries of  the  Fourth Schedule have already been  reproduced.   It appears  to us that entries dealing with "hours of work  and rest  intervals"  and’ "leave with wages and  holidays"  are wide  enough to cover the case of illegal strikes  and  rest days.   Indeed,  entry  no. 8 dealing  with  "withdrawal  of customary  concession  or privilege or change in  usage"  is also  wide  enough  to take within its fold  the  change  of weekly  holidays from Sunday to some other day of the  week, because  it seems to us to be a plausible argument  to  urge that  fixation of Sundays as weekly rest days is founded  on usage  and/or  is treated as a customary privilege  and  any change  in  such  weekly  holidays  would  fall  within  the expressions "change in. usage" or "customary privilege". We are not unmindful of the force of the argument pressed on behalf  of the appellant that if a holiday is  changed  from Sun-.  day  to some other week day it would not  affect  the material gain or financial benefit available to the  workmen because  the workmen would nontheless get one day  off  with pay in a week.  Whether the paid day of rest is a Sunday  or some  other week day would no doubt cause no financial  loss to  the  workmen.  But the financial benefit cannot  be  the sole  criterion  in  considering  this  question.  in   this connection it must not be ignored that due to long usage and other  factors  Sunday  as a  holiday  may  for  conceivable reasons  have assumed importance for workmen.   For  certain classes of workmen Sunday as a weekly rest day may also have special  significance.   Workmen  may,  for  example,   also generally  like  to have weekly rest day on  a  Sunday  when their  school  going  children have a holiday  so  that  the entire  family may be able to take part in  recreational  or other  social  activities.  This consideration has  its  own importance.  If that be so, then, notice for effecting  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

a change would be within the contemplation of s.  9A.    The real  object  and purpose of enacting S. 9A seems to  be  to afford an opportunity to the workmen to consider the  effect of   the  proposed  change and, if necessary,  to  represent their point of view  on  the  proposal.   Such  consultation further  serves  to  stimulate a  feeling  of  common  joint interest  of  the management and workmen in  the  industrial progress  and increased productivity.  This approach on  the part of the industrial employer would reflect his harmonious and  sympathetic  co-operation in improving the  status  and dignity  of the industrial employee in accordance  with  the egalitarian   and  progressive  trend  of   our   industrial jurisprudence which strives to treat the capital and  labour as  co-sharers  and  to break away  from  the  tradition  of labour’s subservience to capital. Shri  Pai referred us to the Factories Act, 63 of  1948  and submitted that s. 52 read with s. 2(f) of that Act indicates that  adult  workers  are not required to  work  on  Sundays except under 606 certain conditions.  It was argued that when Sundays as rest days  are  considered  of importance, the law  in  terms  so provides.  In the present case, according to the submission, no  importance  is  intended to be attached  to  Sundays  as weekly  days of rest.  A change from Sundays to  some  other week  days as days of rest should be considered as a  matter of  little or no importance for the workmen.  We are  unable to  agree  with  this  submission.   In,  our  opinion,  the Factories  Act fortifies our view by suggesting that  it  is not  immaterial or unimportant whether workmen are  given  a Sunday or some other week day as a weekly rest day.   Though reference was also made by Shri Pai to the Mines Act, 35  of 1952,  in  our opinion, each statutory provision has  to  be construed on its own language, though the general scheme  of legislation on a given subject may, if necessary, be kept in view,  if it throws helpful light on the construction to  be placed  on  an ambiguous provision.  No  such  consideration arises in the present case. In  our opinion, in order to effectively achieve the  object underlying  s. 9A, it would be more appropriate to place  on the  Fourth Schedule read with S. 9A a construction  liberal enough-to include change of weekly rest days from Sunday  to some  other week day.  The appellant having thus effected  a change in the weekly days of rest without complying with  S. 9A read with the Fourth Schedule this change must be held to be  ineffective and the previous schedule of weekly days  of rest must be held to be still operative.  Reference was made at  the  bar  to certain decisions but they  are  of  little assistance in construing the statutory provisions with which we are concerned and which, as already observed, have to  be construed on their own language and scheme.  We,  therefore, do not consider it necessary to refer to those decisions. The result then is that the appellant’s contention that  the workmen   concerned  had  resorted  to  illegal  strike   on September  22 and 29, 1963 must be rejected.  On  this  view the respondents’ contention that the appellant had illegally declined to give work to the respondents on September 25 and 26,  1963  and that the appellant had declared  lock-out  on those two days which was illegal has also to be upheld.   No doubt,  mere refusal to give work does not by itself  amount to  lock-out but in the present case it cannot  be  disputed that  when  the  employers closed the  Sijua  and  Bhelatand collieries  respectively on September 25 and 26,  1963  they knew  that this change in the weekly days of rest  was,  not acceptable to a considerable section of the workmen who  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

not come to work on Sunday September 22, 1963.  The  closure of the place of work in the two aforesaid collieries on the  607 two days in question was thus deliberate.  Coal having  been declared  a  public  utility service,  as  observed  by  the Regional  Labour  Commissioner  in  his  order,  notice   as contemplated  by  s. 22 of the Act was  necessary.   Such  a notice  having  not  been given, the  lock-out  was  clearly illegal  under s. 24 of the Act.  The High Court was in  our opinion  right  in  the  orders  made  by  it  in  the  writ petitions. All the six appeals thus fail and are dismissed with costs. Only one set of costs. V.P.S.     Appeals dismissed. 608