SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(SC) 130

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Bombay (In both the appeals), Appellant
Versus
1. K. V. Gopalan and others, Respondents (In C. A. No. 159 of 1964); 2. K. J. Xavier and others (In C. A. No. 160 of 1964), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 159 and 160 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. B. Pai, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates, of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Appellant (In both the appeals); Mr. M. R. K. Pillai, Advocate, for Respondents (In both the appeals).

Advocates:
G.B.PAI, J.B.DADACHAN, M.R.Krishna Pillai, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan

Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: The short question of law which these two appeals raise for our decision (sic) to the construction of Ss. 3 and 11 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (No. 47 of 1958) (hereinafter called the Act). That question arises in this way. Two complaints were filed against the appellant, the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., by the two groups of respondents, its workmen, respectively under S. 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act. These applications alleged that the management of the appellant had contravened the provisions of S. 33 of the said Act inasmuch as it had denied its employees leave with wages on Founder s Day and Good Friday in 1962. According to the respondents, they were entitled to have holidays with pay on the said two days under the terms and conditions of service, and so, they claimed that the Tribunal should direct the appellant to give its employees holidays under the said existing arrangement and should pass other appropriate orders for the payment of wages for, the two holidays in question. The appellant disputed the correctness of the respondents contention. The Tribunal has rejected the appellants plea and has declared that the respondents are entitled to the privilege of paid holidays on Founder s Day and Good Friday in 1962. It has also ordered that the appellant should pay the wages to the respondents for those two days and the proportionate salary of the staff members as soon as the award comes into force. It is against these orders passed by the Tribunal on the two complaints preferred before it by the respective respondents that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave; and on its behalf, Mr. Pai has contended that in making the award, the Tribunal has misconstrued the effect of Ss. 3 and 11 of the Act. Standing Order 30 of the Standing Orders of the appellant company makes provisions for leave of all categories. S.O.30(vi) provides for holidays. It lays down that the factory will be closed on the following days which will be considered as Company Holidays with pay, and will not be counted against the casual or privilege leave of an employee:

1. New Year Day (1st January).

2. Founder s Day (Saturday nearest to 3rd March).

3. Good Friday.

4. Onam.

5. Christmas Day (25th December).

There is a note appended to this provision which makes it clear that in the event of the Company being compelled to observe a holiday or holidays for reasons of State, such day or days shall not be counted as against the privilege or casual leave of the employees but shall be treated as a Company holiday or holidays. Thus, it is clear that under the relevant Standing Order, the respondents are entitled to 5 paid holidays every year.

2. After the Standing Orders were framed and certified, there was an agreement between the appellant and the respondents Union as a result of which the appellant agreed to grant a further holiday, and this agreement raised the number of total paid holidays in a year to 6. The additional holiday which the appellant thus agreed to give to the respondents was to be given on the day when the respondents Union would celebrate its Union Day. Apparently, this holiday was analogous to the Founder s Day, the idea underlying the agreement being that just as the appellant gave a paid holiday on the Founder s Day, the respondents should be given a paid holiday on the Union Day.

3. It appears that even after this agreement was reached, the respondents began to claim additional holidays; but the appellant was not prepared to make any addition to the list of holidays. It was prepared to leave the choice of the agreed holidays to the employees provided they submitted to the Company an agreed list of such holidays.

4. In 1958, the Act was passed and it came into force on the 29th December 1958. Section 3 of the Act provides-

"Grant of National and Festival Holidays-

Every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year a holiday of one whole day










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top