9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (9) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the following issues: (2) Are the workmen entitled to any bonus in excess of what the employers have paid for the year 1125? . (3) Are the workmen entitled to any bonus in excess of what the employers have paid for the year 1126? (4) Arc the workmen to be given one day's leave with wage for every twenty days' work Irrespective of any other consideration? (9) Are the workmen entitled to any sick leave or festival holidays with pay? (13) Are the workmen entitled to any compensation during the period for which the factories remain closed for reasons beyond the control of the management? 3. The Industrial Tribunal awarded bonus at varying rates in respect of most of the concerns and disallowed the same in respect of some. On the 4th issue the award stated that the workers were to get one day's leave with wages for every 20 days of work irrespective of the total number of days worked in a year. On the 9th issue the Tribunal held that the workers were entitled to one day's leave with wages on Onam day. However in stating the conclusion on this issue it was mentioned that two days' leave with wages should be given for Onam. The finding on the 13th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be governed by the provisions contained in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and not by arbitrary notions of social justice. It was further pointed out that this being a seasonal industry the provisions of Sections 25C to 25E were not applicable to the Industry and that the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to award compensation in the absence of a declaration by the Government that the industry was a non-scasonal one. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal the State Government declared cashewnut industry as a non-seasonal one but the decision was quashed by this Court in O. P. Nos. 275 and 276 of 1956. The Standing _ Orders applicable to all these concerns also provide that there would be no work for three or four months in the year. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Chapter V-A deals with Lay off and 'retrenchment'. Sections 25C to 25E provide as follows; 25-C (1) Whenever a workman (other than a badli workman or a casual workman) whose name is) borne on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment and who has completed not less than one year of continuous service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the workman, provided that the wages which would normally have been paid to the workman are offered for the alternative employment also; (ii) if he does not present himself for work at the establishment at the appointed time during normal working hours at least once a day; (iii) if such laying off is due to a strike or slow-ing down of production on the part of workmen in another part of the establishment. 8. Section 25-A provides that Sections 25-C to 25-E inclusive shall not apply to industrial establishments which are of a seasonal character or in which, work is performed only intermittently and that it a question arises whether an industrial establishment is of seasonal character Or whether work is performed there only intermittently, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final. The Tribunal accepted the position that the work-men were not entitled to lay-off compensation under the Act and observed in paragraph 43 of the Award: Now I may state at the outset that it is not open to the federation to invoke the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (relating to lay-off compensation) in support of the claim for compensati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act applies only to workmen who are on the muster rolls and who have not been retrenched. Retrenchment pre-supposes the continuance of the industry and there is no question of retrenchment here. The industry has standing order and a copy of the same has been produced by the petitioners. Clause 11(40' of the Standing Orders provides that Cashewnut being a seasonal crop, there will not be work for three or four months in the year. It is not disputed that these Standing Orders are still in force. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that compensation awarded is for unemployment and not 'lay-off and that the question whether workmen are entitled to compensation for unemployment being one of fact, this court ought not to interfere. I am unable to appreciate the distinction sought to be made out. The shortage of work in the factories for three or four months a year is due to non-availability of raw materials and in my opinion the Industrial Disputes Act ought to govern the matter rather than principles of social justice. Commenting on the expression social justice , the Supreme Court has held in Muir Mills Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, (S) AIR 1955 SC 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an year, a worker should get one day s leave for every 20 days work. There is no substance in this contention. It has already been stated while considering the question of paying compensation for unemployment that the industry is seasonal in nature. The rule applicable to factories working throughout the year cannot therefore be applied to this industry. Ons reason which weighed with the Tribunal was that it was possible to apply the provisions in the Factories Act to factories which generally do not provide work for more than 240 days in the year and that there was no justification for depriving the workers of earned holidays with wages merely on the ground that they have not worked for 240 days, in an year. Another reason was that this practice was in vogue in several of these factories. It may at first sight appear that there is inconsistency in applying Section 25-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to these factories so far as the question of lay-off compensation is concerned and not apply Section 79 of the Factories Act to the question of holidays with wages but really there is none. In the former case the Industrial Disputes Act contains specific provision that compensation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
