MADURA COATS LIMITED v. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, FIRST CIRCLE, MADURAI & ANR (2)

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 302

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.C. GUPTA, A.P. SEN

Case summary

This appeal on certificate, from the judgment of the Madras High Court raises a question of some complexity. Wages-(1) Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, every employee shall be paid wages for each of the holidays allowed to him under section 3.

Judgment text

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;emcnt 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 establiE>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 under sub-s. (2) of s. 5 of the Act. In Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of the Buckin· gham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. (I) the night-shift operatives of a textile mills stopped work from about 4 p. m. upto al? out 8 p. m. on a certain day, the apparent cause of the strike bcini: that the management had expressed their inability to comply with the request of the workers to declare the forenoon of that day as a holiday for solar eclipse. The stoppage of work was the result of a concerted action and ! ell within the definition of a 'strike' in s. 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, l 9~7. The strike was an illegal strike as the t! 'xtile mills was a public utility industry and no notice had been giY,en to the manage· .. . _, ment, even though the refusal to work continued only for a few hours.

It was held that the continuity of service of the workers was interrupted by the illegal strike and, therefore, they were not entitled to claim holidays with pay under s. 49-B(l) of the Factories Act, 1934. In Management of Chandramalai Estate, Ernakulam v. Its Workmen(! ) the workmen made certain demands and the matter was referred for conciliation. After conciliation efforts failed the workmen struck work. The question was whether the workmen were entitled to (I) [1953] SCR 219. (2) [1960]3 SCR 451. ,. 4--57 SCI}Sl . 310 . StJPR,EME COURT REPORTS ·[198·1] 2 ·S. C. R. paid holidays for the period of strike. It was held, on the facts of the case, that the strike was unjustified and the workmen were not entitled to any wages for the period. The question ultimately is one of fact. The liability of the management to pay wages for the national and festival holidays under s. 3, read with sub-s. ( 1) of s. 5 of the. Act, is subject to their right under sulJ. -s. (2) of s.

5 of the Act to call upon the workmen to come and work on such holidays. That depends upon whether or not the strike was illegal or unjustified. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is reversed. The writ petition filed by the appellant is· allowed and the impugned notice issued by the Inspector of • Factories is quashed. We wish to mention that the appellant has undertaken to pay· wages to the workmen for 26th January, 1976 irrespective of the result of ' the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. N. V. K. Appeal allowed. ' . ..