Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : These two appeals arise from the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, and shall be dealt with together. There was a dispute between the management of Messrs. Slay and Baker (hereinafter called the company) and its workmen with respect to various matters, which was referred for adjudication on January 6, 1956. The tribunal gave its award on October 19, 1957, and it is this award which is being assailed in these two appeals by the company as well as the workmen. It is not necessary to set out the points of dispute in detail. We propose to confine ourselves to the points raised by learned counsel on either side in the respective appeals and shall start with the company s appeal.

2. The first item relates to medical facilities. The main attack of the company is on that part of the award which directs the supply of injections or patent medicines at half cost when the company s doctor certifies that these are essential for the employee in question and this direction its to cover products other than those of the company. It is urged that this will increase the burden on the company enormously. However, the direction is subject to the further overall direction that the cost of medical assistance in any one year shall not exceed one month s salary including allowance of a particular workman. In the circumstances, the contention of the company that it will increase the burden on this head enormously is not justified. We, therefore, reject the contention.

3. The next contention is with respect to leave facilities. The tribunal has directed that accumulation of privilege leave shall be allowed up to the maximum period of twelve weeks. This direction is attacked on the ground that it is against the provisions of S. 22 (1) (b) (i) of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, No. VII of 1954. This contention must succeed, for S. 22 (1) (b) (i) provides that privilege leave admissible may be accumulated upto the maximum period of thirty days. It was, therefore, not open to the tribunal to allow accumulation of leave upto twelve weeks. The award of the tribunal is, therefore, modified and the accumulation of privilege leave is allowed upto thirty days only as provided by law.

4. Further the company attacks the provision as to maternity leave. It is enough to say that although the workmen claimed maternity leave, the company said nothing in its reply about it. In the circumstances we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal with respect to this item.

5. The company next attacks the provision as to working hours. Its main contention is that fixation of working hours is peculiarly a management function and there was no reason for the tribunal to interfere with the hours of work fixed by the company, particularly when they were well within the hours allowed under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act. It appears that the company s working hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with three rest intervals-one hour for lunch, 15 minutes for morning tea, and 15 minutes for afternoon tea. The tribunal changed the hours to 9-30 a.m. to 5 p.m. with one hour s interval for lunch. Theoretically, therefore, there was no reduction in the working hours but practically there was because the tribunal directed that instead of the two intervals of 15 minutes each for tea which was supplied by the company to its workmen, it should see that the tea is supplied to the workmen at their tables. Obviously, therefore, what will happen is that the workmen will take their time for tea because they cannot both work and take tea at the same time; and the tribunal has in effect reduced the working hours by half an hour each day. There is in the circumstances no justification for this reduction. Similarly, the tribunal has reduced the working hours for the subordinate staff for which again we find no justification. In the circumstances the existing working hours which are well within the hours of work prescribed under the Delhi Shop