Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1962 Supreme(SC) 19

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
22nd January, 1962
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Bagalkot Cement Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
R. K. Pathan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 577 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Narayanaswamy, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. for Appellant, Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocate (amicus curiae), for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.NARAYANASWAMY, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY

The word "conditions" in Cl. 5 of the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 includes the substantive provision for the quantum of leave and holidays, as well as the conditions and procedure for applying for and granting leave and holidays.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - SCHEDULE, CL. 5 - SCOPE AND EFFECT - CERTIFYING OFFICER'S JURISDICTION - ADDITION OF CLAUSE (7) TO PARAGRAPH 11 OF STANDING ORDERS - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Bagalkot Cement Co. Ltd., submitted draft Standing Orders to the Certifying Officer and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras, for certification under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Certifying Officer made certain amendments and additions to the draft, including the addition of clause (7) to paragraph 11, which dealt with leave and holidays. The appellant challenged the Certifying Officer's jurisdiction to make this addition, arguing that it was outside the scope of Cl. 5 in the Schedule to the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Certifying Officer had jurisdiction to make the addition of clause (7) to paragraph 11 of the Standing Orders. The Court interpreted Cl. 5 of the Schedule broadly, holding that the word "conditions" in the clause included the substantive provision for the quantum of leave and holidays, as well as the conditions and procedure for applying for and granting leave and holidays.
Issues: Whether the Certifying Officer had jurisdiction to add clause (7) to paragraph 11 of the Standing Orders, which dealt with leave and holidays.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Certifying Officer had jurisdiction to make the addition of clause (7) to paragraph 11 of the Standing Orders. The Court interpreted Cl. 5 of the Schedule broadly, holding that the word "conditions" in the clause included the substantive provision for the quantum of leave and holidays, as well as the conditions and procedure for applying for and granting leave and holidays. The Court reasoned that this interpretation was consistent with the object of the Act, which was to require employers to make the conditions of employment precise and definite, and with the broad and liberal meaning of the word "condition".
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Certifying Officer had jurisdiction to make the addition of clause (7) to paragraph 11 of the Standing Orders.

Judgment

GAJENDRADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the scope and effect of Cl. 5 in the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946 (20 of 1946) (hereinafter called the Act). That question arises in this way. The appellant Bagalkot Cement Co. Ltd. is a Limited C Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 it carries on the business Or manufacturing cement and for that purpose, it owns a factory as well as a limestone Quarry at Bagalkot in the State of Mysore. As required by S. 3 of the Act, the appellant submitted draft Standing Orders on the 3rd Marsh 1958 to the Certifying Officer and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras, in order that they should be certified. The Certifying Officer considered to draft submitted by the appellant, heard the appellant and its employees, the respondents and passed an order of certification on the 16th June, 1959. While considering the draft for the purpose of certification, the Certifying Officer, however, made certain amendments in, and additions to, the said draft. Amongst the additions made, clause (7) in paragraph 11 was one and it is with this addition made by the Certifying Officer that we are concerned in the present appeal.

2. Paragraph 11 of the draft Standing Orders submitted by the appellant dealt with the question of leave. Paragraph 11(1) of the draft provided that holidays with pay will be allowed as provided for in the Factories Act, 1948, and other holidays in accordance with law and contract. Clauses (2) to (6) dealt with allied matters. In the Standing Orders as they were finally certified, cl. (1) of paragraph it was slightly changed and it provided that holidays will pay will be allowed as provided for in the Mines Act. No grievance is made of this alteration Clause (7) has been added to paragraph 1l. It reads thus :

"7. The workmen shall be allowed during the course of a year :

(a) Ten festival holidays with pay for the celebration of important festivals (which will be fixed before the commencement of every calendar year in consultation with the workmen) including the Republic Day (26th January) and the Independence Day (15th August) and/or any other paid holidays as may be declared and notified by the Government from time. Those workmen that are required to work on festivals and National Holidays shall be given an equal number of compensation holidays on day convenient to the company,

(b) Fifteen days casual leave with wages. This will include all kinds of leave due to sickness or any other use.

(c) Casual leave will not be allowed for more than 3 days at a time except in the case of sickness and emergencies at the discretion of the company.

(d) Wages shall be allowed for those days remaining unavailed by the workers at the end of the year.

(e) Fourteen days annual leave to all classes of workers who have put in 265 attendances in a year as defined in the Mines Act. This includes statutory leave.

All leave should be applied for only in the prescribed form. The workmen after filling the particulars of the leave required by them shall hand over the same to the head of the section in which they are working."

The appellant apparently contended before the Certifying Officer that it was outside his jurisdiction to deal with the topics covered by clause (7) which he wanted to add but its objection was overruled.

3. Against the order passed by the Certifying Officer Certifying the Standing Orders with the additions and amendments made by him, the appellant preferred an appeal under S. 6 of the Act to the appellate authority viz. the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central, New Delhi, on the 5th July, 1959. The appellate authority, in substance, agreed with the view taken by the Certifying Officer and retained the addition made by him by the insertion of clause (7) to paragraph 11. He, however, made slight modifications by directing that in clause (a) there will be seven festival holidays instead of ten festival h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document