BIJLI COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL II & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 20-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

910 
BIJLI COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. 
v. 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL . .II & 
. 
ORS. 
March 20, 1972 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ,] 
U.P. 
IndustriaA 
Establishments 
(National) · Holidays Act, 1961-
No provision for payment of wages for festival holidays-Wherher pco·-
:c.·ble in the .facts and circumstances o0f the case. 
An industrial dispute arose between the appellant and its workmen as 
to whether the employers were required tC' pay wages for the festival 
hOlidays allowed to their workmen in a yeJr. 
The appellant contested 
the workmen's claim mainly on the ground> that neitmr in law nor in 
-prac~icc was there any provision for festival holidays with wages, that 
the appell-ant was already paying wages for three holidays allowed to the 
workmen undo:T the U.P. Jndustrial Establish~nt (National Holidayll) 
Act, 1961 and that in the entire region in which this mill is situated, no 
textile mill pays wages for festival holidays. The mill was stated to be 
an uneconomic unit and, therefore, not in a position to be-ar an extra 
burden. The workmen, on the other hand, in their separate written state-
ments, filed through three Unions, plead~d that the grant of holidays 
without wages was illegal and against social justice. In their rejoinder 
the 'lPPellant pleaded that the holidays mentioned by the Unions were 
granted because the workmen had demanded the same and thosr~ holidays 
were substituted by other days in lieu of holidays and as they were paid 
for the days on which tht.!y worked on account .of those holidays there 
.w~ no loss of wages caused to them. 
The Tribunal by its award m'3de the appellant liable to pay to their 
daily-rated and piece-rated workmen for· 17 festival holidays, 
besides 
three national holidays, plus arrears, on the ground that too Seci'etary 
of the appellant mill 'ldmitted that the festival holidays were paid holidays 
in the sense that workers were allowed to work on their unpaid l'.!st days 
in substitution of the said festival holidays. 
The appellant being aggriev-
ed by the award presented a writ pr.!tition before the High Court which 
was dismissed by a single Judge. 
Special le:1ve to a Divisional Bench of 
the.'.High Court was di.smissed in limirre, but the Bench cm'tified tm case 
to be fit for appeal to· this Court. The appellant was held oatitled to 
c~rrifitate either under cl. (a) or cl. '(b) of Art. 133(1) of the. Consti· 
tution on the ground that value 9f the subject matter of dispute ·or claim 
was Rs. 20,000 or more. 
. 
Tbe respondent in the Supreme Court objec.,~ t() the competence of 
the c'ertiflcate en the ground that .. though ·the judgment of the Di~ision 
Bench was one of affirmance the certificate did not disclose on. its face 
the existence of any substantial question . of Jaw. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
This objection was upheld but as the case was considered fit for_ 
.U 
special leave, on oral !'.!quest special le-:1ve was grap.ted on the condition 
that. the- appellallt :"o~ld file a form~ I application for special leave accom-· 
pamed ·by an appl!cati,on for condemn g the delay. 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
BIJLI COTTON MILLS v. INDUSTRIAL TRfBUNAL (Dua, J.) .·911 
/ 
AllowiJli the: app¢al 'Oil the merits, 
. HELD : -By reading the state~m:nt of the Secretary of the appellant 
along with the pleadings as disclosed in the respective statement of cases 
of: the parucs, it is JiQt .potsible to hold t~t t~e . appelJ.ant . ~d .admitted 
that the 17 festival holidays were hei11g given by them as paid holidays 
dispensing with the enquiry into the question referred for adjustment to 
the Industrial Tribunal. Even the workl'llen did not plead that the festi· 
val holidays were treated as p:1id holidays. 
The Secretary'~ statemel)t that . no festival holidays were paid in tl12 
sense , that the workers were allowed to work on unpaid rest days in 
substitution of the said· festival 
holidays. This 
staterrunt c!C'lrty ex· 
plains that sense in which the Secretary· meant to say that the festival 
holidays . were paid. The facts contained in the explanation lead to the 
onlY conclusion Jh~t fr:stival holidays are not· paid as the festival holidays 
are. This statement read with the· detailed explanation could not logically 
serve as a sround for ignoring the unequivocal denial in the written' state-
ment. The Industrial Tribunal;· was therefore,. wrong in holding that· the 
statement made by the Secretary was 'an admission on behalf of the appel· 
!ant

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