LexALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. BARODA & OTHERS. versus THE WORKMEN & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
80 A ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. BARODA & OTHERS. B v. THE WORKMEN & OTHERS July 30, 1976 [Y, V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948-S. 61-If debars gram of sick leave-If the Act deals with all aspects of sickness. The workmen's demand for grant of sick leave and its accumulation upto a period was rejected by the employers on the ground that the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 provided more than adequate sickness benefits, and that any additional benefits would place . a financial burden on the industry and would adversely affect other industries in the region. The Tribunal, to C which the dispute was referred, partly granted the workmen's demand. D E F G H On appeal to this Court it was contended that s. 61 of the Employees' State Insurance Act debarred a person entitled to any of the benefits· under that Act from receiving similar benefit under the provisions of any other Act and as such the workmen were not entitled to the benefit of sick leave. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : (1) The Employees' State Insurance Act, does not deal with the question of sick leave. The scheme of the benefits iidmissible under the Act does not cover the workmen's demand for sick leave to the extent allowed by the Tribunal. Section 61 is not applicable because the benefits granted by the Tribunal are not similar to those admissible under the Act. [84 CJ The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi v. Their Workmen [1964] 1 SCR 234 and 'Technological Institute of Textiles v. Its Workmen and others [1965] 2 L.L.J. 149 applied. (2) Sickness benefit under the Act cannot· be said to be adequate, for, it works out to about half' the average wage of a workman which benefit is not admissible for the first two days of sickness except under the conditions provided in the Act. A workman is prevented from earning the normal daily wages during the period of his illness and there is . no justificaltion for the argument that the rate of benefit at about half his wage, under the Act, should be considered s'ufficient so as to deny him the benefit of s·ick leave on full emoluments for a period of 7 days when he is certified by a. competent medical officer to be ill for that or a longer period. Sickness is a serious misfortune to a. workman for it not only prevents him from earnillg his normal wages, but is a drain on his meagre financial resources by way of additional expenditure on food, hursing and visits to the medical cenl re etc. [84 E-FJ ( 3) The Tribunal could not be said to have erred in restoring the benefit which the workmen were receiving under an earlier award. The benefit . of sick leave to the employees in the region was lost when the Act was made applicable to the region from December 14, 1969. This _was obviously under a mistaken impression. The Act does not deal with all -aspects of sickness benefit and does not provide for the grant of leave on full emoluments during the period of a workman's physical incapacity to earn his· normal wages because of his sickness. [85 Jli.C] · ( 4) There is no force in the argument that the Tribunal had granted additional privilege leave for 7 days under the garb of sick leave because by its very nature sick leave would be admissible only in the case of actual sickness certified by a registered medical practitioner. [86 Bl .(5) There is no evidence to show that the benefit had not been allowed by other companies in the region. The Tribunal had examined the financiaf - ) -< .... x ·-f-, ALEMBIC GLASS v. THE WORKMEN (Shinghal, J.) 81 capacity of the companies and had they were in good financial po&ition ~ -·~-.... •• I given adequate reasons for holding that and could bear the additional burden. [85 HJ ( 6) It has not been shown that the a wards are illegal or unjust, or would adversely affect the economy or the industrial peace, or lead to imbalance in the conditions of service in other industrial establishments. [86 CJ A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 1975. .,,, Appeal by Special Leave from the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat in Reference (II) No. 30 of 1974, published in the Gujarat Govt. Gazette dated 23-10-1975 and Civil Appeal No. 631 of 1976 Appeal by Special leave from the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat in Ref. (II) No. 158 of 1974 published in the Gujarat Govt. Gazette Part 1-L dated 15-4-76. V. B. Patel, I.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.