LexTHE PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD., PATNA versus THE PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY WORKERS UNION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS 761 THE PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD., PATNA v. THE PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY vVORKERS' UNION (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Housing Jacilities for industrial labour-- Award based on Bihar Government Scheme~Validity. One of the i terns in dispute referred to the Industrial Tribu- nal for adjudication, which was the subject matter of this appeal, related to the demand of the Workers' Union that the appellant company must provide quarters to its employees in terms of the Bihar Government Scheme and undertake immediate construc- tion for that purpose. The case of the Company was that the State and not the employer was primarily responsible for provid- ing quarters to the employees and, in any event, it was not financially possible for the appellant to undertake the task. The Tribunal upheld the Union's claim and directed the company to start construction of at least 15 quarters, as specified by the Government scheme, within a year. The Labour Appellate Tri- bunal, on appeal, held that the Government scheme was binding on the company and upheld the award. The scheme, on which the award was based, was one pre- pared by the Industrial Housing sub-Committee appointed by the Government of Bihar and sanctioned by the Government as recommended by the Bihar Central (Standing) Labour Advisory Board. It imposed on the employers the responsibility for hous- ing industrial labour and provided for financial assistance to the employers by the State Government to the extent of 50% of the capital required, by way of loan repayable in 25 annual instal- ments, recoverable, on default, from the properties mortgaged for the loan or the assets of the debtor. The scheme prescribed the terms on which the quarters were to be let out to the employees and specified their size. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that, the scheme was not obligatory and could not impose a term of em- ployment for the workmen. For the Union it was argued that the scheme had materially altered the rule, followed by indus- trial adjudication in such cases, so far as the State of Bihar was concerned and had imposed a moral obligation on the appellant. Neither the Industrial Tribunal nor the Labour Appellate Tribu- nal in appeal, took the financial position of the company into consideration where they held that the Scheme did impose a 96 I959 April 23. I959 The Patna Electric Suj-1ply Co , Ltd., Patna v. The Patna Electric Supply JVorkers' Union 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. moral obligation on the appellant to provide quarters for its employees, which \Vas enforceable in industrial adjudication. Held, that the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government was merely of a recommendatory nature and since it had no statutory force it could not provide a basis for the direction made by the a\vard. Its language sho\ved that it was vague and not intended io be acted upon anJ so it could not have the effect of intro. ducing a term of employment as between the employer and the ¥.'Or.k1nen. Although there could be no doubt that, Industrial Tribunals' had generally the power and jurisdiction, apart from any scheme or agreen1ent bet\veen the parties, in appropriate cases, to impose new obligations on the employers in the interest of social justice and for securing peace and co-operation between the employer and the \VOrkmen, the award in appeal could not be justified on the merits under the prevailing condition of the industrial evolution in the country. H 1 estern India Autu!J'iohile Association v. The Industrial Tribu- nal, Bombay, A.LR. r949 F.C. rrr, The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. The Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi, [1950] S.C.R. 459 and Rohtas Jndu.stries Ltd. v. Brijnandan Pandey, [1956] S.C.R. 800, referred to. It was the duty of Industrial Tribunals to take into consi- deration the interests of national economy and progress and they were entirely right in taking the view, which they had consis- tently done, that it would be inexpedient in the present financial condition of the industries in the country to impose the addi- tional burden of providing housing facilities on them which should be the primary responsibility of the State. Eastern Plywood Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Their Workers, [1949] L.L.J. 29r, Mohamad Rai Akbarali Khan v. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., [1953] L.A.C. 677, Sa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.