Industrial tribunals have jurisdiction to impose new obligations on employers in the interest of social justice, but this power must be exercised judiciously and with due regard to the financial condition of the industry and the state of national economy.

Judgment

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR J. : This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., (hereafter called the appellant) and its workmen represented by the Patna Electric Supply Workers Union (hereafter called the respondent). The appellant is a public company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office at Patna. It is an industrial establishment engaged solely in public utility service, namely, the supply of electricity for the requirements of the public and is a licensee under the provisions of the Electric Supply Act, 1948 (54 of 1948). On March 29, 1952, the Government of Bihar, by a notification issued under S.7 read with S. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereafter called the Act) referred twelve items of dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. H. K. Chaudhuri as the sole member. Out of the said items the present appeal is concerned with only one; and it relates to "the housing facilities to the workmen and principle of allotment of quarters to them". The respondent had put forward a demand that the appellant should provide houses to its employees and should undertake the construction of quarters immediately in that behalf. The respondent s case was that the appellant was bound to provide quarters to its employees and let out the same to them according to the Bihar Government scheme. The appellant denied its liability to make any housing provision for its employees and that gave rise to the industrial dispute.

2. The appellant urged before the tribunal that the housing facilities and allotment of quarters to workmen was the primary responsibility of the State and not of the employer; and it alleged that in any event it was financially not possible for the appellant to undertake the task. The appellant had also contended that it had to function within the limits prescribed by the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and that the relevant provisions of the said Act would not permit the appellant to undertake any expenditure to meet the respondent s demand.

3. On March 9, 1953, the tribunal upheld the respondent s claim and by its award it directed the appellant to start construction of at least 15 quarters according to the specifications laid own in the Government scheme within one year from the date of the publication of the award.

4. This part of the award was challenged by the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal; but the appellate tribunal was not impressed by the appellant s pleas and so it dismissed the appeal on January 31, 1956. It agreed with the tribunal in holding that the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government was binding on the appellant and it saw no substance in the appellant s contention that expenditure involved in the construction of the quarters would be inadmissible under the Electricity Act.

5. The appellant then applied for, and obtained, special leave from this Court on September 17, 1956. That is how this appeal has come to this Court, and the only question which it raises for our decision is whether the direction issued by the award calling upon the appellant to start the construction of at least 15 quarters is justified or not.

6. It is true that the appellant has provided housing facilities for some members of its staff. It appears that 17 employees out of 183 in the Power Station, 146 out of 329 in the Mains Department, and 1 out of 58 in the General Department have been provided by the appellant with free quarters, whereas one employee in the Mains Department is granted house allowance at 12 1/2 per cent in lieu of a house. But this arrangement is a matter of the appellant s choice and volition; and it cannot be made an obligation and thus virtually a term of employment; that is the appellant s case.

7. On the other hand, the respondent s contention is that the Bihar Government scheme of industrial housing has now been finalised and it imposes upon the a