M/S. ROHTAS SUGAR LTD., & OTHERS versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 12-02-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
""\--
-r 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
989 
appropriate Government as meaning, in relation to 
x96v 
any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried 
on by or under the authority of the Central Govern-
B. c. Milts Ltd. 
b 
~ 
mentor y a railway company or concerning any Their Workmen 
such controlled industry as may be specified in this 
b_ehalf by the Central Government, the Central Gajendragadkar ]. 
Government. The question which arises is: has the 
textile industry been specified as controlled industry 
in this behalf by the Central Government ? · It is true 
that the textile industry is controlled by the provisions 
of Act 65 of 1951 and in that sense it is controlled 
industry ; but that would not be enough to attract 
the application of s. 2(a)(i) of the Act. What this 
latter provision requires is that the Central Govern-
ment must specify "in this behalf" that the industry 
in question is a controlled industry; in other words 
the specification must be made by the Central Govern-
ment by reference to, and for the purpose of, the pro-
visions of the Act in order that the Central Govern-
ment may itself become the appropriate Government 
qua such industry under s. 2(a)(i) of the Act. It.is 
conceded by Mr. Sastri that no such specification has 
been made by the Central Government. Indeed, we 
ought to add in fairness to Mr. Sastri that he did not 
very seriously press this. point. 
The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed with· 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
M/S. ROHTAS SUGAR LTD., & OTHERS 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO AND 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Seasonal Industries-Unskilled workmen-Retaining allowance 
for off season-If wage structure to be raised in lieu of reta-ining 
allowances. 
The unskilled seasonal workmen of the.Bihar Sugar Industry, 
bulk of whom belonged to the landless labou.rer class, who ceased 
to have any contractual relation with the employers once the 
•
February, xa 
• 
• 
• 
• 
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
z960 
season \Vas over and on the commencement of the next season 
might or might not rejoin their employment, raised disputes over 
Rohtas Sugar Ltd. the question whether retaining allowances should be paid to them 
v. 
during the off season. 
Their Wotkmen 
The Labour Appellate Tribunal inter alia awarded a retain-
• 
\ 
ing allowance to unskilled workmen, at a rate of 5% of the 
basic wage for the period of the off season to be paid every year 
at the beginning of the season, when they reported for duty. 
The main contentions on behalf of the employer were that 
agriculture \Vas the primary occupation of these persons and the 
employment in the Sugar Factory was merely a subsidiary 
occupation, that claim for retaining allowance was really in the 
nature of unemployment relief which it was the duty of the 
State and not the industry to give, that the relationship of 
employer and employee did not ·exist in the off season and so no 
payment of anything in the character of wages could possibly 
be claimed by the labour. 
Held, that the relief of unemployment by arranging suitable 
alternative employment or an alleviation of the distress of 
employment insurance benefits or by other modes though is 
primarily the function of the Government of the country, yet 
the industry where these workmen are. seasonally employed 
cannot look unconcerned and play no part in alleviating the 
distress ·of the people who have contributed to the prosperity of 
the industry by their labour though only for a part of the year. 
In deciding whether the principle of social justice which it 
is the aim of industrial adjudication to apply to justify the 
payment of retaining allowance to unskilled workmen in these 
sugar industries it is necessary to take into account. 
(a) opportunities of alternative employment in the off 
season that will be available to such workmen; 
(b) the degree in which such workmen can be said to have 
become attached to the particular factory where they work; 
(c) the likely benefit to the industry if such workmen are 
induced to return to the factory by the incentive of retaining 
a.llovo'ance to be paid when the season commences; 
(d) the capacity of the il)dustry to bear 'the burden of 
retaining allo\vance. 
Held, further, that for alleviating the distress of unskilled 
workmen in these Sugar Factories, a much better course \Vill be 
to raise the wage structure with an eye to this fact that for a 
part of the off season at lea

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