LexJ. K. COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS CO., LTD. versus BADRI MALI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
IHI
124 St:JPREN:IE COURT REPORTS [19tl4] VOt.
be irrelevant when claims are made under s. 33C ( 2),
where these claims are, as in the present case, based
on an award and are intended merely to execute the
award. In such a case, limitation cannot be intro-
duced by industrial adjudication on academic ground
of social justice. It can be introduced, if at all, by
the legislature. Therefore, we think that the Labour
Court was right in rejecting the appellant's conten-
tion that since the present claim was belated, it
should not be awarded.
In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed
with costs.
Appeals diamiuei.
J. K. COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING
MILLS Co., Ltd.
v.
BADRI MALI AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR, K.. N. WANOJIOO,
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
lruiurial DiBpute-Definition of 'worker'.-MaliB u.WAer
tMWkera-JlaliB whether induatrial employee&-" Employed in any
'1iduatr1/'-Meaning-Principle of incide11tal
relati0111Jhip--:
Gninl of 'leave' on ground of fair play and social juatice-
Valldity-(]oncept of •OcUd justice-Uttar Praie&h Industrial
l>NpvleB Acl, 1947 (U.P. 28 of 19il7), s. 2-Induatrial !Mpulsa
..tel, lfl''I (1' of 1947), •· 2 (s).
An Industrial diaputc was referred by the Government of
U«ar Pradesh for adjudication to the Adjudicator, Kaupur.
The Adjudicator held that the Malis were worlimen under . the
U.l'.' Industrial Disputes Act but they were not Industrial
employees arid hence were not entitled to claim dear food
allowance under the Government order dated December 6, 1948.
ThO claiioa of the Malis with regard to weekly holidays and
leave with wages were also rejected by the Adjudicator.
-
a s.c.R.
SUP.REME COURT REPORTS
725
Two cross appeals were filed against the order of the
Adjudicator before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The
appeal of the appellant was dismissed. As regards the appeal
of respondents, the Tribunal gave the Malis beneht of dear
food allowance. Their claim for leave with wages was also
allowed on the ground of social justice. However, their claim
fo• weekly holiday was rejected.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad
High Court but that was dismissed as infructuous. The
appellant came to this court by special leave.
The contentions raised by the appellant in this court wtte
that the Malis were not workers
within the meaning of
s. 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, that Malis were not
industrial employees within the meaning of Government order
dated December 6, 1948, and hence were not entitled to dear
food allowance and that the Labour Appellate Tribun<1l should
not have granted the demand of the respondents for leave on
ground of fair-play and social justice.
Held
that the Malis were workers within the meaning
<>f s. 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. They were
employed by the appellant, were paid by it and were subject
to its confrol and supervision and discharged the .function of
looking after the properties of the appellant. Their conditions
of service were also determined by the appellant and the con-
tinuance of their service also depended upon the pleasure of the
appellant •. The bungalows and gardens on which they worked
were a kind of amenity supplied by the appellant to its officers.
Hence, the Mal is were engaged in operations which were
incidentally connected with the main industry <;arried on by the
eilfployer. The ease of the Mal is was similar to that of the
bus drivers. The relation of the work earned on· by the
Malis with the Industry was not remote, indirect or far-
fetl::hed.
The employee who is engaged in any work or operati<>n
which is incidentally connected with the main industry of the
employer is a workman, provided the other requirements of
s. 2 (s) of'the industrial Disputes Act are satisfied.
Held also, that the Malis were industrial employ~ within
the meaning of tha Government order dated December 6, 1948
and hence were entitled to c1aim the benefit of dear food
allowance. The Tribunal was in error in limiting the scope of
the u9'W~ssion "fod~s!rial employ;es". by reference to l the
d'efimtlon of the word "worker" as $1Ven m the l'actorics Ac~.
1'0
/. /{, Col14" ·~1.,
t!I w.-.,.Mills
~~"Lil.
v.
WiMall
-
IJ68
J, K. C.t,_ S;iMi1t1
& w,..;01 MUls
c.., LUI.
••
&iri M•li
726
SUPREME COURT REPORtS(l964) VOL,
Held also, that the Tribunal was justified in granting the
demand of the respondents for leave on grounds of fair-play
and social justicExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.