Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. (With him Das Gupta, J.) :This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute in relation to a comparatively minor demand made against the appellants by the respondents-their employees; but in challenging the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the respondents on that demand the learned Solicitor-General has raised a general question before us. He contends that in granting the demand made by the respondents, the award has illegitimately and unjustifiably trespassed on the appellants freedom of contract. The appellants as employers, are entitled to fix the terms of employment on which they would be willing to employ workmen and it is open to the workmen either to accept those terms or not; industrial adjudication should not interfere in such a matter. That is the nature of the general contention which has been raised before us in the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the dispute are few and they lie within a very narrow compass. The appellants are the Trustees of the Tribune Press and Paper and the Trust is being worked in accordance with the terms of the will executed by Dya1 Singh Majithia on the June 15, 1895. In carrying out the policy of the Trust, the five appellants have executed a Power-of-Attorney in favour of Mr. R. P. Sharma and the Press in managed and the Paper is conducted to carry out the policy laid down by the will.

3. It appears that before the 1st of July, 1956, for the purpose of leave, the appellants had divided their employees into two categories (1) the Lino-operators and (2) the rest of the workmen in the Press Section; and Rule 57 made provision for leave on the basis of the said classification. The effect of the said rule was that no press worker other than the lino operator was entitled to any kind of paid leave although he was given the right to claim 30 days wages plus dearness allowance payable in January every year if he had worked for 11 months. In addition, the said press worker was entitled to quarantine leave on the terms mentioned in R. 53.

4. This position was substantially altered on July 1, 1956, when the appellants framed a new Rule in respect of earned leave This rule abolished the two categories of worker on which the earlier R. 57 was based and divided the workers into two categories (i) workers who were employed on or before July 1, 1956, (ii) those who were employed after July 1, 1956) respect of the former category of workmen, the new Rule made the following provision:

"Subject to the provisions of the Indian Factories Act, 1948, every workman in the service of the Tribune on the 1st July 1956 will be entitled to 30 days leave with wages, after having worked for a period of 11 months. This leave shall cease to be earned, when it amount to 60 days".

In regard to the workmen falling under the latter category, earned leave was to be governed by the provisions of S.79 of the Indian Factories Act. It is common ground that the provision for earned leave made by the said Section is a provision for minimum earned leave which the employer is bound to give; whether or not additional leave should be granted by way of earned leave is a matter within the discretion of the employer. As a result of the new rule the position was that the employees who had joined the service of the appellants on or before July 1, 1956 were entitled to 30 days earned leave with wages whereas those who joined after the said date became entitled to the statutory minimum of 21 days of earned leave.

5. At the time when this rule came into force there were 94 old employees to whom the rule applied and 27 new employees to whom by virtue of the new Rule, S. 79 of the Factories Act was made applicable. Gradually, new hands have also been employed and to all such new employees S. 79 is applicable. It appears that by its resolution passed on January 8, 1960, the Tribune employees union sent to the Management a charter embodying about 20 demands. Attem