GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY versus ALL GUJARAT KAMDAR KARMACHARI UNION

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 875 · Decided: 31-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 875 
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY 
V. 
ALL GUJARAT KAMDAR KARMACHARI UNION 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7358 of 2002) 
JULY 31, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 - ss. 33 and 33A -
Settlement between employer and employees - Notice for 
termination of settlement - No fresh settlement - Pendency C 
of industrial dispute as regards regularization of services of 
daily rated workers - Employer declaring holidays subsequent 
to Government Notification - Workers filing complain! u/s. 33A 
alleging breach of s. 33 -
Industrial Tribunal holding 
declaration of holidays without pay as illegal, directing D 
payment of wages in lieu of holidays -Award confirmed by 
Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court - On 
appeal, held: Section 33 is applicable a/so to daily rated 
workers, it is not restricted to holders of post alone - The 
change in conditions of service was connected with the 
E 
pending dispute - Service conditions as per the settlement 
was still binding on the employer - However, direction for 
payment of wages in lieu of the holidays unjustified on the 
principle of 'no work no pay' - But since the workers could not 
work because of wrongful act of employer and that the 
F 
employer declared the holidays as it was bound by the 
Government Notification, direction for payment of 50% of the 
wages. 
Words and Phrases - 'Conditions of service' - In the 
context of s. 33(1)(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -
G 
Interpretation of. 
Employer-University and the respondent-workers 
Union entered into a settlement dated 22.8.1980. Workers 
875 
H 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A Union, thereafter gave a notice to the employer for the 
"' 
termination of the settlement as the workmen intended to 
submit their demands afresh. No fresh settlement took 
place, but the workmen of a particular zone raised an 
industrial dispute with regard to regularization of their 
B · servicos. During pendency of the industrial adjudication, 
subsequent to a Government Notification, the employer 
declared 2nd and 4th Saturday every month and 11 days 
Diwati holidays. Accordingly the daily rated workers were 
not provided any work during the holidays. 
c 
The daily rated labourers, aggrieved by the change 
of their service conditions during pendency of the 
Reference, without following prescribed procedure, filed 
complaints u/s. 33A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
alleging breach of s. 33. Industrial Tribunal passed the 
D award holding that the grant of leave without pay was 
illegal. It also directed the employer to pay wages to the 
workers in lieu of the additional holidays. The award was 
upheld in a writ petition by Single Judge of High Court 
and also by Division Bench of High Court in LPA. Hence, 
E the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is true that daily wagers are not the 
holders of a post but the expression 'conditions of 
F service' occurring in Section 33 (1) (a) of Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 is not restricted to the holders of post. 
The expression, is of wide range and relates to the 
workmen who may be temporary, adhoc, daily rated, 
permanent, semi-permanent or otherwise. What Section 
G 33 provides is that, inter alia, during the pendency of any 
proceeding before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal 
in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer shall not 
in regard to the matter connected with the dispute, 
change conditions of service prejudicially to such 
H workmen. It is not correct to say that since daily rated 
.. 
. 
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ALL GUJARAT 877 
KAMDAR KARMACHARI UNION 
employees do not hold any post and, therefore, there are 
A 
no conditions of service for such employees. [Para 16] 
[886-C-F] 
State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. 
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and Lily Kurian vs. Sr. Lavina and Ors. 1979 
B 
(1) SLR 26, referred to. 
2.1. There is 110 flaw in the view of the Industrial 
Tribunat as well as of the High Court that the settlement 
dated August 22, 1980 is still in force and binding on the 
employer and the action of the employer in giving leave 
C 
for more than one day in a week after May, 1991 and 11 
days festival leave amounts to changing the conditions 
of service of the daily rated labourers who are covered 
by the settlement dated August 22, 1980 without 
following the prescribed procedure and, therefore, illegal. 
D 
[Para 27] (893-E

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