Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : The two disputes on which the reference out of which the present appeal has arisen was made were in these terms

1. Whether there has been any departure from the past practice by the Management in the matter of encashment of privilege leave and, if so, what directions are necessary in this respect ?

2. Whether leave facilities to subordinate staff should be granted on the same basis as other staff members and what directions are necessary in this respect ?

2. The workmen s contention was that since 1948 till shortly before the dispute arose the company had been encashing privilege leave standing to the credit of the workmen after keeping 30 days at the credit and this practice became by implication a part of the terms and conditions of service. The employer s case on this question of encashment was that this matter was dealt with by the company s Rule 45 under which encashment of privilege leave was permitted only "if privilege leave, which would lapse unless availed of, is refused due to urgent necessity of work, and if the company is unable to grant such lapsing privilege leave at any other time even on repeated fresh applications before the date of lapsing, a