I.D. DUA, J.

(1) THE following dispute between M/s. Bijili Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.) and their workmen was referred to the Industrial tribunal II, U. P. for adjudication:

"SHOULD the employers be required to pay wages for the festival holidays allowed to their workmen in a year? If so, from which date and with what other details?"

According to the workmen the employers had been giving 17 festival holidays to their workmen in a year and though those holidays should have been paid ones the employers were not making any payment.

(2) THE dispute was originally espoused at the instance of Hathras Mazdoor Panchayat but later three other unions namely Sooti Mill Mazdoor Panchayat, Congress Mazdoor Sangh and Sooti Mill Karmachari Sangh were also accorded right of representation on their applications. The employer mills contested the claim on various grounds. The plea on the merits in substance was to the effect that neither in law nor in practice was there any provision for festival, holidays with wages. The Mill, it was averred, was already paying wages for three holidays allowed to the workmen under the U. P. Industrial Establishments (National Holidays) Act (U. P. Act XVIII of 1961) and in the entire Agra region in which this Mill is situated no textile mill pays wages for festival holidays. It was added that the Mill was an uneconomic unit and was not in a position to bear any extra burden. The Congress Mazdoor Sangh, the Sooti Mill Karmachari Sangh and the Hathras Mazdoor Panchayat filed separate written statements on behalf of the workmen and pleaded that the grant of holidays without wages was illegal and against social justice.

(3) THE employer mill filed rejoinder statement to the written statements of all the Unions, pleading that the holidays mentioned by the Unions were not allowed to the workmen at the employers initiative but were granted because the workmen demanded the same and these holidays were substituted by other days in lieu of holidays, and as they were paid for the days on which they worked on account of these holidays there was no loss of wages caused to the workmen.

(4) ON 15/07/1965, the parties made their statements under Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, which provides for procedure at first sittings of the tribunal requiring the parties to state their respective cases, Shri M. P. Jaiswal, on behalf of the employers) admitted that the company gives 17 festival holidays to all its employees, 15 of which are those mentioned in the written statement of the Congress Mazdoor Sangh and two others being Sankranti and Baldev Chat observed on Bhadon Sukia Chat. All these holidays were stated by him to be paid holidays in the sense that the workers were allowed to work on their unpaid rest days in substitution of the said festival holidays. The unpaid rest days were the same as those provided and observed under S. 52 of the Factories Act as unpaid holidays. It was admitted that the monthly raters were paid for 365 days in a year whereas piece-raters were paid according to the quantum of work done by them on working days in a month. The national holidays given by the employer are not substituted on any rest day and if any national holiday falls on a rest day the employer pays single days wages if no work is done. If a holiday is. substituted on rest day then only one days wages are paid. After this statement four representatives of the contesting unions stated that whenever the management takes work from the workers on a rest day only one days wages are paid and it was emphatically denied that holidays were substituted on a rest day. Monthly raters, according to these representatives, get their wages for all 365 days.

(5) AFTER these statements the Presiding Officer of the tribunal put the following question to Shri Jaiswal :

Q : Whether the festival holidays observed in the mill are paid or unpaid? A: They are paid holidays and payment is made by substituti