KAYS CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD. versus STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 26-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

Z7fi 
KAYS CONSTRUCTION CO. (P)LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
November 26, 1964 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. c. SHAH, s. M. Surn AND R. s. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 6-H-
Back wages of workmen-Exact amount not calculated but amendable 10 
arithmetical calcula1lon-Such am~unt whether 'money due' under first 
clause or 'benefii capable of being computed in terms of money' ~nder second 
clause. 
The appellant company had lo pay under an award of the Labour 
Tribunal the back wages of some workmen. The Labour Commissioner 
issued a recovery certificate in respect of part of these wages to the Collec-
tor under s. 6-H(l) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1927, and stated 
A 
B 
c 
that for the rest of the amount due be would issue another certificate later 
when the exact amount had been worked out. 
The appellant company 
challenged the certificate before the High Court, contending that it was 
not in respect of 'money due' for which proceedings under sub.s. ( 1) of· D 
•· 6-H could be taken, 
but was a 'benefit' to be compuied in terms of 
money for which the appropriate proceedings couli: be only under sub .... 
(2) of that section. A single Judge of the High Court accepted the con-
tention of the appellant company, but his judgment was reYersed by a 
Division Bench of the High Court. The company appealed to the Supreme 
Court by special leave. 
HELD : The Division Bench had correctly confined the term 'benefits' 
£ 
under the second clause to benefits like rent free quarters, free electricity 
etc. which were not things which a man earned through his labour. In 
the present case what was required was not computation of money-value 
of 'benefits' but only an arithmetical calculation of total money wages over 
a certain period. 
The elaborate procedure under sub-s. ( 2) of 1. 6-H 
w"" not mean for cases where only arithmetical calculation was required. 
The appeal therefore could not succeed. (281 C-GJ 
r 
M.S.N.S. Transport.<, Tiruchirapalli v. Rajaram and another, [1960] I 
L.L.J. 336, Seshmusa Sugar Works Md. v. State of Bihar, A.LR. 1955 Patna 
49, S. S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., (1958] S.C.R 442, Kasturi & So113 
(P) Ltd. v. N. Salivaresaram, (1959] S.C.R. I, Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. 
Kharbunda, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 977 and Shri Amarsinghii Mills Ltd. '" 
Nagarashua (M.P.), (1961] I L.L.J. 581, referred to. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN : Civil Appeals Nos. 1108 G 
and 1109 of 1963. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 
March, 15, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal 
No. 574 of 1960 and Supreme Court Appeal No. 53 of 1962 
respectively. 
H 
Sir Iqbal Ahmad, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri 
for the appellant (in both the appeals). 
,_ 
!CAYS CONSTRUCTION v. STATE (Hidayatullah, J.) 
277 
A 
C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 
(in both the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullab, J. 
These are two appeals by special leave in 
B 
which Kays Construction Co. ( P) Ltd. is the appellant. 
Civil 
Appeal No. 1108 of 1963 is against a judgment of the Allahabad 
High Court, dated March 15, 1962 and Civil Appeal No. 1109 
of 1963 is against an order of the same High Court, dated May 9, 
1962 declining to certify the case under Art. 133 of the Constitu-
tion as in the opinion of the High Court the proceedings from 
c which the appeal arose before the High Court was not a civil 
proceeding within Art. 133. As special leave has been granted 
against the judgment of the High Court and we are of opinion that 
the appeal against thilt judgment must be dismissed, we do not 
think it necessary to decide the other appeal. 
0 
The facts of the case may now be stated briefly. The appellant 
Company is the successor of a private concern which went under 
th<> name of Kays Construction Company and was owned by one 
Mr. H. M. Khosla who is now Managing Director of the appellant 
Comvany. 
It appears that Mr. Khosla found it unprofitable to 
continue the business as his own and he stopped it for a while 
E before Kays Construction Co. (Private) Ltd. came into existence. 
The appellant Company took over the business and with it, some 
of the workmen of the former concern but not all. This led to an 
Industiial dispute before the Allahabad Industrial Tribunal (Sugar) 
and an award was made on January 31, 1958. One of the questions 
in dispute before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.