1960 (12) TMI 99 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Propriety and reasonableness of the demand for leave.
2. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to make an award exceeding the provisions of Section 79 of the Factories Act, 1948.
3. Alleged discrimination between clerical staff and operatives.
4. Modern industrial thought on liberal leave provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Propriety and Reasonableness of the Demand for Leave:
The Tribunal considered the appellant's contentions against the respondents' demands, reviewed awards or agreements in comparable concerns, and made its award. For privilege leave, the Tribunal ordered:
- Upto 3 completed years of service: 16 days per year.
- Upto 9 completed years of service: 22 days per year.
- Thereafter: One month for every 11 months of service.
Accumulation of privilege leave was allowed up to three years. For sick leave, the Tribunal ordered 15 days per year with full pay and dearness allowance, with a right to accumulate up to 45 days, and no medical certificate required for sick leave of three days or less. The Tribunal also made appropriate directions for leave in proportion to service duration.

2. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to Make an Award Exceeding the Provisions of Section 79 of the Factories Act, 1948:
The appellant argued that Section 79 of the Factories Act, 1948, is exhaustive and self-contained regarding annual leave with wages, precluding any additions by the employer or Tribunal. The Court examined Section 79 and found it to be a minimum provision rather than a maximum. The Court emphasized the beneficent policy of the Act, favoring interpretations that further the Act's purpose and benefit employees. Sections 78 and 84 of the Act were also considered, indicating that the Act does not intend to standardize leave provisions strictly, allowing for more generous arrangements through laws, awards, agreements, or contracts.

3. Alleged Discrimination Between Clerical Staff and Operatives:
The appellant argued that providing privilege leave to clerical staff while denying it to operatives would create discontent and disturb industrial peace. The Court noted that a distinction between operatives and clerical staff is generally made in practice and comparable concerns, and such a distinction is justifiable. The appellant's own standing orders also made different provisions for the two categories of employees. Therefore, the Court found no issue of discrimination in the Tribunal's award.

4. Modern Industrial Thought on Liberal Leave Provisions:
The appellant contended that liberal leave provisions are opposed to modern industrial thought and should be discouraged. The Court acknowledged that industrial adjudication should consider national economy needs and avoid unduly generous leave provisions that could affect production. However, the Court deferred to the Tribunal's familiarity with trends in comparable concerns and found no basis for interference. The Tribunal had considered relevant factors, previous decisions, and prevailing agreements in making its award.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's award on all counts. The provisions for privilege leave and sick leave were deemed reasonable and in line with the Act's beneficent policy. The Court found no discrimination between clerical staff and operatives and no grounds to alter the Tribunal's decision based on modern industrial thought. The appeal was dismissed with costs.