LexRAI BAHADUR DIWAN BADRI DAS versus THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I9nt Sepfember 'I. • 930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [1963] RAI BAHADUR DIWAN BADRI DAS v. THE iNDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA and J. R. MUDHOLKAR,.JJ.) . . Industrial Dispute-Earned leave-Different rule• for tx'8ting and future emp/;oyees-Whethei' discriminatory-Indu•· trial Tribunal-Power to interfere with contract between employer and employee-Indian Factories ·Act, 1948 (LXIII of 1948), 8. 79. . On July.I, 1956, the appellants made a rule that every workman employed on or before that date would be ·entitled to 30 days leave with wages after working for 1 t months and workmen employed after that date would be entitled to earned leavC in accordance with the provisions of s. 79 of the Indian. Factories Act, 1948. •The State Government referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal the question whether all the employees should be allowed 30 days earned leave with full wages fOr every 11 mon1.hs' service without discrimi· nation. The Tribunal held that all the workmen were entitled to 3.0 days earned leave without making any distinc- tion between workmen who joined before July 1, 1956, and those who joined subsequently. The appellants contended that they were entitled to fix the terms of employment on which they would employ the workmen and it was open to the workmen to accept those terms or not and the tribunal was n9t justified in interfering in such a matter. · Held, per Gajendragadkar and Das Gupta, JJ., that the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellants to provide for the same uniform rule as to earned leave fOr all their employees. The doctrine of absolute freedom of contract had to yield to the higher claims for social jus1ice and had to be regulated. In industrial adjudication no attempt . should be made to answer questions in the abstract for evolving any general or• inflexible principles. ·Each dispute has to be decided on its own facts without enlarging the scope of the enquiry. If some principles have to be followed or evolved, care has to be taken not to evolve Jarger..c ,( ··~ ·- .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 931 principles. In order that industrial adjudication should be free from the tyranny of dogmas or the sub-conscious pressure of preconceived notions it is important that the temptation · to Jay down broad principles should be avoided. Accordingly it is not necessary to -decide the broad contention whether industrial adjudication can interfere with the contract between the employers and the employees. In the present case, all the workmen were governed by the same terms and conditions of service, except in regard to earned leave, The discr_imina- tion was not based upon any principle and was bound to lead to disaffection amongst the new employees. The financial burden imposed by the award on the employers was slight. The provisions for earned leave in respect of old employees were not unduly generous or extravagant. Earned leave provided for by s.79 Factories Act was the minimum statutory leave. If the appellants thought it necessary to provide for additional earned leave for their old employees,. there was no reason why they should not make a similar provision in respect of new employees as well. · Western Indian Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, A.I.R, 1949 F.C. 112 and Bharat Bank Ltd. v. The Employees of Bh.arat Bank Ltd. [1950] S.C.R. 513, referred to. Per Mudholkar, J .-The Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the rule made by the appellants. It was open to the appellants to grant leave according to s.79 Factories Act, to all the employees but still they did not wish to reauce -the leave of 30 days which they were already giving to the old employees. The __ appellants have put into one category persons who enjoyed the same kind of benefits uptil July I, 1956, and have put in another category persons who did not enjoy such benefits. All persons in each category were treated alike, and the question of dis· crimination did not in fact arise. If the State had pro- vided that persons entering its service after a certain date -' .would be governed by a set of conditions which were different and less favourable than those governing the existing servants its action would not be open to an attack under- Art. 14 of the-Constitution. An identical action of a private employer could also not be regarded as discriminatory. An award ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.