MADURA COATS LIMITED versus INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, FIRST CIRCLE, MADURAI & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 02-12-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.F 
302 
MADURA COATS LIMITED 
v. 
INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, FIRST CIRCLE, 
MADURAI & ANR. 
December 2, 1980 
[A. C. GUPTA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Tan1ilnadu Industrial Establishments (l\:atio11al a11d Festh·al Holida:"s 1 Act 
1958, SS. 3 and 5(1) and (2)-Scope of. 
Workn1en going on strike-Natural holiday interrening-Liability of !tfanar;e-
mcnt to pay H'l1ges for the 1Vational holidoy-When arises. 
The Ta111il Nadu Industrial Establishment (National and Festival l-folidays) 
Act, 1958 wns a legislation intended to provide for 
national 
and 
festival 
holidays in industrial establishments in the State of Tamil Nadu. 
Section 3 
of 
the 
Act 
provides 
that 
every 
employee 
in 
an 
industrial 
estab-
liE>h:nent 
shall 
be 
entitl ::d 
to 
four 
national 
and five 
festival 
holidays 
in each 
calender 
year. 
Sub-section 
(1) 
of section 
5 
provides 
that 
'nohvithstanding any contract to the contrary every employee shall be paid 
wages for each of the holidays allowed to hin1 under section 3. 
Sub-section 
(2) of sccti.on 5 confers upon the en1.ployer the right to call upon the 'A-:orkn1en 
to come rind \\'Ork on such holidays on the fulfilment of the· conditions se' out 
therein. 
The oppellant was <in industrial establishment owning textile mills in the 
State of Tamil Nadu. 
In respect of a claim for bonus for the year 1974-75 
there was a dispute behveen the management and its workmen. 
This resulted 
in a strike by the workmen, from January 21, 1976 to February 5, 1976 which 
was called off by the worktnen on Febn1ary 6, 1976. 
The management paid 
the workmen wages for the month of January 1976 after excluding therefrom 
the wages payable for the period of strike during January namely January 21 
to January 31, 1976. 
The Management having withheld the wages pnyable for 
January 26, 1976 the first respondent addressed a communication stating that 
in vie~' of section ·5 of the Act payment of \·r,:ages for January 26, 1976 had 
to be made. 
The n1anagement challenged the order by A Writ Petition in the High Court. 
The High Court held that having regard to the pro\iisions contained in section 
3 and sub-section ( 1) of section 5 of the Act, the appellant was bound to pay 
the workn1en wages for January 26, 1976 even though the workmen \\'Cr~ nn 
strike on that dote an<l dis111issed the Writ Petition. 
Allowing the tt·ppeal to this Court 
I-TELD: (1) The liability of t'he Management to pay wages for !hl! national 
and festival holidays under section 3 read with sub-section (1) of section 5 of 
the Act is subject to the rights under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act 
to c;i\1 upon the \vorkmen ro come and 'vork on such holidays. 
) 
{ 
' 
-
MADURA COATS v. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES 
303 
(2) The construction placed by the High Court on sub-section (2) of sec-
A 
tion 5 of the Act cannot be accepted. 
Under the schen1e of the Act 
the 
workmen are entitled ro wages for the national and festival 
holidays 
under 
section 3 read \Vi th sub-section ( 1) of section 5, but this right of theirs' 
is 
subject to the right of management given under sub-section (2) of bCCtion 5 
to call upon the workmen to come and 
work on such holidays. 
Any other 
construction would make the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 
5 wholly nugatory. 
[308H; 309A] 
B 
( 3) Both sub-sections ( 1) and (2) of section 
5 
contain 
non ob st ante 
clauses. 
While the 11011 obJlante clause in sub-section ( 1) of secl'ion 5 gives 
to the \\orkn1en the right to clain1 \vages for snch holidays 'notwithstanding 
any contract to the contrary' the 11011 ohstarlle clause in sub-section 
(2) 
of 
section 5 subordinates the right of the \vorkmen to claim wages for the national 
or festival holidays 
'notwithstanding anything contained in section 3'. Sub-
sections (1) nnd (2) of section 5 have been enacted with separate and distinct 
objects and they operate on different planes. [306H; 307AJ 
Vasudevan, R.M.S. U11ion v. Lotus Mills Ltd. [1977] II LLJ 483 overruled. 
( 4) It \VOuld depend on the facts and circun1stances of each case whether 
c 
or not wages become payable in the context of strike. 
When a 
strike 
is 
D 
neither illegal being not in contravention- of any statutory 
provisiont nor un-
justified having been lodged a<; a protest aga1nst the unreasonable attitude of 
the man<igen1ent, there is no reason to deprive the workmen of their wages. 
[309B] 
Bucld11ghan1 and Car11aric Co. Ltd. v. TVorkt'rs of the Bucking

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