ASSAM MATCH COMPANY LIMITED versus BIJOY LAL SEN & OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 27-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

116 
ASSAM MATCH COMPANY LIMITED 
V, 
BUOY LAL SEN & OTHERS 
April 27, 1973 
(A. N. GROVER AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
lndustrfr:l Disputes Act 1947-S. 9A-Whether appellant 
contravened the 
St'ction whei1 it r:hanRed the holiday for Ka/ipuja front 11th November to 12th 
l'v~oJJember at the request of the majority of workers. 
' 
The appellant, according to the usual practice of the company, at the begin· 
ning of 1966, bad published a list of holidays for that year. 
According to this 
list. the holiday for Kalipuja was stated to be on Friday the 11th November 
1966. 
The \Vorkmen in this company were represented by two Unions-The 
Amco Employees Association' and 'Amco Shramic Sangha' of \\'hich the Sangha 
represented the majority of the workmen of this compariy. 
On November 8, 1966, the appellant notified that the factory will remain 
closed for Kalipuja on 11th Novembor 1966. 
On 10th November 1966. 
the 
(ieneral Secretary of the Sangha wrote a letter to the Factory Manager of the 
Company requesting him to close the factory on Saturday the 12th November, 
1966 on account of Kalipuja instead of 11th November, 1966. 
A further re-
quest was made that the factory may be kept working on Frid3.y in accordance 
\vith the timings of the company and stated in his 1etter that if the request fOr 
change in the holiday is not acceptable a large number of workmen will not be 
attending on Saturday and there will be heavy loss of production. 
On receipt 
of this letter, the .. appel1ant put up a notice the same day that in response to 
the request of the Sangha the factory will remain closed on Saturday the 12th 
November instead of Friday the 11th. 
After the company's notice regarding the change of holiday for Kalipuja, the 
other Union. the Association on the same day addressed a letter to the Manage· 
ment that the change of holiday for Kalipuja was not justified and that 
the 
original date should be allowed to stand. The company did not accede to this 
request and as a result most of the workmen belonging to the Association did 
not attend \\'Ork on November 11. 1966. The wages for the day were not paid 
by the appellant to those workmen who were absent on that day. 
After about a year, the respondents filed an application before the Labour 
Court under s. 33-A of the Act. 
The grievance of these workmen was that 
there was an industrial dispute pending at the relevant time and that without 
complying with the provisions of s. 33 and s. 9~A. the employer had altered the 
condition of the service by changing the date of the 
holiday 
for Kalipuja. 
According to the respondents, one day 
holiday for Kalipuja was allowed to 
them for a number of years and that it had become a condition of servite. The 
standing orders of the com;Jany did not give any power to the appellant to 
change the holiday for Kalipuja, and thPrefore s. 
33(2) (a) of the Act was 
violated. 
According 
to them, any 'change 
of date can only be affected in 
accordance with s. 9-A. 
Therefore the employer in declaring 12th November 
as a holiday and refusing to pay wages for 11. November 1966 acted. illegally. 
The management on the other hand, contested the application on the ground 
that there had been no change in the conditions 
of service of the workmen. 
The change was made to suit the convenience of the workmen themselves and 
it \\'as done for their benefit. 
The Labour Court accepted the plea of the management but held that as 
tke holiday has been originally fixed for 11th but later changed to 12th amount· 
ed to a change in the condition of service and therefore. the procedure under 
s. 9-A had not been followed. 
As the said procedure had not been followed 
by the appellant, the Labour Court held that there had been a violation of 
s. 33 read with s. 9-A of the Act and he granted the reliefs accc>rdingly. Allow-
ing the appeal, 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
. E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
ASSAM MATCH co. v: B. L. SEN (Vaidia/i11ga111, J.) 
117 
HELD : (i) The alterauon ot the date regarding the holiday for Kalipuja 
from l lth·. to 12th Novi:mb~r 1966, cannot be considered to be an alteration in 
the conJilions af ser\•icc. The workmen may be enti:Jcd to have a holiday for 
Kalipuja. 
But on \vhat particular date Kalipuja falls or it is being o.bserved 
nnd a holiday is tb be declared, is a matter to be decided by the management 
in consultation \Vith the \Vorkrricn. 
If a large body of the workmen require a 
change in the date of the holida

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.