Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : Two items of dispute between the appellant Pfizer Private Ltd., and the respondents, its employees, were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, by the Government of Maharashtra under Ss. 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on January 22, 1962. Both these items arose out of the proposed changes which the appellant wanted to make in the terms of employment governing the service of the respondents-. The appellant proposed to reduce the existing paid holidays to 8 instead of 27 to which respondents were entitled because so long, the appellant has been giving to its employees the benefit of public holidays as declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

This was the first item of dispute between the parties. The second item of dispute was in regard to refixation of the hours of work. The appellant desired to introduce three shifts in most of its departments and accordingly it had given a notice of change under S.9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Both these proposed changes were resisted by the respondents. The Tribunal has rejected the appellant s case for the introduction of three shifts in its factory and this part of the award is challenged by the appellant by its appeal No. 625 of 1962. In regard to the appellant s claim for reducing the paid holidays, the Tribunal has substantially accepted the appellant s case and has directed that the holidays should be reduced to 10 every year. It has directed the appellant to fix these holidays in consultation with the respondents. It has also added that in view of the fact that a substantial reduction was being made in the number of paid holidays, the appellant should give the respondents an additional increment in their grade with effect from August 1,1962. This increment would be in addition to the normal increment which may become due or after August, 1962. This part of the award reducing the number of holidays is challenged by the respondents by their appeal No. 626 of 1962. Both the appeals have been brought before this Court by special leave.

2. The appellant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,1913. It has its registered office at Bombay and it runs a factory in which it manufactures life saving drugs, such as antibiotics and antitubercular drugs, and vitamin products. The appellant s factory was working a multiplicity of shifts with different times. It, however, found that this working did not fully utilise the machinery installed in the factory. The utilisation of the raw product received by the appellant s factory in Bombay from its factory at Chandigarh was also not satisfactory and as a result of inadequate production, the appellant was not able to meet adequately the demand for its products from the market. That is why the appellant came to the conclusion that there was need to introduce three shifts in order to have extensive production of better quality products. The appellant felt that if it was able to produce its products on a much large scale, it would be able to undertake export of the said products, and in any event, larger production would enable the appellant to meet its competitors in the trade. Besides, the preparation of the well-known antitubercular drug Para Amino Salicylic Acid (P.A.S.) which the appellant had developed in its research laboratory after carrying out laboratory and pilot plant experiments in 1960-61, needed the working of the relevant section on a three-shift basis because its production was a continuous process and as a result of the investigation made by its expert, the appellant came to the conclusion that the quality of the product would be very much improved if the section working in the production of the said drug was to work continuously. That was an additional reason why the appellant wanted to introduce 3 shifts in its factory. It thought that if the chemical and pharmaceutical departments were to work in three shifts the other subsidiary s