Holding

The tripartite settlement and the provisions of Section 12 of the Jute Companies (Nationalisation) Act and Section 13 of the Bihar Industrial Establishment Act protect the workmen's more favourable holiday rights, so the Tribunal's award cannot be set aside.

Summary

The workmen of a jute mill, transferred to the National Jute Manufacturers Corporation under the Jute Companies (Nationalisation) Act, 1980, were originally entitled to ten paid national/festival holidays and seven days of casual leave, including Deepawali as a paid holiday. After the transfer, the corporation substituted the Deepawali holiday with a paid holiday on 2nd October, prompting an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal, relying on a 1983 tripartite settlement, ordered that Deepawali be restored as a paid holiday, a decision affirmed by the Patna High Court. The corporation appealed, arguing that the Bihar Industrial Establishment Act did not apply to a centrally controlled entity and that the substitution was permissible. The Supreme Court held that, under Section 12 of the Nationalisation Act and Section 13 of the Bihar Act, rights and privileges more favourable to the workmen cannot be withdrawn, and the settlement expressly bound the corporation to regulate holidays per the Bihar Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the Tribunal's award intact.

Issues considered

Whether the substitution of the Deepawali paid holiday with a 2nd October paid holiday violates the workmen's rights under the Bihar Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holidays and Casual Leave) Act, 1976 and the Jute Companies (Nationalisation) Act, 1980.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal's award granting Deepawali as a paid holiday can be interfered with in view of Section 13 of the Bihar Act and Section 12 of the Nationalisation Act.

Subjects

labour lawpaid holidaysindustrial disputetripartite settlementnationalisationrights and privilegesholiday substitutionsection 13section 12

Judgment

NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURERS CORPORATION LTD. A
v.
KATIHAR MAZDOOR SANGH AND ORS.

APRIL 12, 2001

[S. RAJENDRABABU AND SlilVARAJV. PATIL, JJ.] B

Labour Law:

Bihar Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holidays and
Casual Leave) Act, 1976:
• c
Section 13-Leave-Workmen entitled to I 0 days of paid national and
festival holidays and 7 days' casual leave prior to transfer of Jute Mill-New
Corporation allowed the same facility of leave to the workmen, through a
tripartite settlement, though the Bihar Act not applicable to the Corporation-
Subsequently, the paid holiday of Deepawali was substituted by paid holiday on D
2nd October-But Industrial Tribunal ordered paid holiday of Deepawali to the
workmen-Correctness of-Held: Under the tripartite settlement, the Nation-
alisation Act and the Bihar Act the rights and privileges more favourable to the
worlanen cannot be taken away or affected-Hence, award of Tribunal does not
call for inteiference-Jute Companies (Nationalisation) Act 1980, S. 13.
E
The Respondents were workmen of a Jute Mills, which stood trans-
ferred and vested in the Central Government under the Jute Companies
(Nationalisation) Act, 1980. The Central Government in turn transferred
the said Mill to the appellant-Corporation. Prior to the transfer the re-
spondents-workmen were entitled to 10 paid national festival holidays in F
addition to 7 days' casual leave. The appellant allowed t.his leave facility to
; the respondents under the provisions of the Bihar industrial Establishment
"'· (National and Festival Holidays and Casual Leave) Act, 1976, through a
tripartite settlement, though the Bihar Act was not applicable to the appel-
lant since it was under the Central Government.
G
Subsequently, the appellant substituted the paid holiday ofDeepawali
by the paid holiday on 2nd October. The respondents raised an industrial
dispute and the Industrial Tribunal ordered paid holiday of Deepawali to
the respondents, which was available to them prior to the transfer of the
Mills. The High Court confirmed this order. Hence this appeal. H
1177
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. Deepawali was a paid holiday to the workmen prior to the
transfer of the Jute Mill. By virtue of the tripartite settlement and in view
of Section 12 of the Jute Companies (Nationalisation) Act, 1980 and Sec-
tion 13 of the Bihar Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holi·
B days and Casual Leave) Act, 1976 the rights and privileges more favour-
able to the workmen could not be taken away or affected. The said settle-
ment itself indicates. tha(the holidays were to be regulated in the manner
specified and within the framework of the Bihar Act and Rules made
thereunder. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal does not call for interfer·
C ence. (1181-B-D; Fl •.
Indian Oxygen lJd. v. Stale ofBihar, (1990] 2 SCC 254, held inapplica-
ble.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6443 of 1997.
D From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.96 of the Patna High Court
in LP.A. No. 1232 of 1995.

Arvind Verma, Ms. S. Manda!, Ms. Varsha Chaudhary and Kapil K.
Chaudhary for the Appellant.
E Ravi Shankar Kumar, Saba Rahman, L.R. Singh and B.B. Singh (NP)
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIVARAJ V. PATlL, J. In these appeals the validity and correctness
F of the Award dated 18.10.1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, as
affirmed by the learned single Judge and confinned by the Division Bench
of the High Court, is challenged. .•
By the impugned award, the tribunal ordered that the workmen shall
get one day's paid holiday on the occasion of Deepawali which was available
G to them prior to 1979. However they will not get any arrears on that count.

Rai Bahadur Hurdut Ray Motilal Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'the
Mill') had remained closed from 25.2.1975 t~ 17.8.1979. On coming into
force of the Jute Companies (Nationalisatfon) Act, 1980 (for short the
H 'Nationalisation Act') it stood transferred and ve~d in the Central Govern-
NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURERS CORPN. L1D. 11. KATIHAR MAZDOOR SANGH (S. V, PATIL, J.) 1179
ment with effect from 21.12.1980. In tum the Central Govennnent nuder the A
provisions of the said Act transferred the Mill to the National Jute Manufac-
y
turers Corporation Limited (for short the 'Corporation'). Though the provi-
sions of the Bihar Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holidays
and Casual Leave) Act, 1976 were not applicable to this Corporation being
under the control of the Central Govennnent as per Section 12(b) of the Act,
B
the management through a tripartite settlement dated 27.4.1983 continued to
allow the workmen the existing number of 10 national and festival holidays
in addition to seven days casual leave in a calendar year. Further the said
.¥
holidays thereafter were to be regulated in the manner as specified and within
the framework of the said Act and Rules made therenuder.
c
When the management reduced one day Deepawali festival paid holi-
day, the workmen raised demand that during the period of private manage-
ment Deepawali was a paid holiday; after the mill was taken over in 1979
it was made nupaid holiday which led to conciliation proceedings. The
..... Conciliation Officer gave a written advice to the management to allow the
festival holidays as before but the management did not accept it contending D
that they were giving one day's paid holiday on 2nd of October since 1979
instead of Deepawali holiday. Consequently the State Govennnent referred
the industrial dispute and the tribnual passed the impugned award.

The management in their rejoinder admitted that since 1979 paid
E
holiday of Deepawali has been substituted by the paid holiday on 2nd
-'.
October. C.P. Singh, Labour Welfare Officer (MW-I) stated that nuder the
private mariagement 10 days paid holidays were given and there was no
holiday on 2nd October. He admitted that before nationalization workmen
were getting Deepav;ali hOliday; from the notice of the management dated
30.9.1979 it is clear that paid Deepawali holiday has been substituted by the F
paid holiday on 2nd October. Even the item No. 2 of the dispute indicated
. that Deepawali was a paid holiday prior to 1979. The tribnual looking to this
evidence concluded that on Deepawali workmen were given a paid holiday
prior to 1979.

The Tribunal, while noticing the contention of the management that the
G
•
provisions of Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holidays and
Casual Leave) Act, 1976 (for short the 'Bihar Act') were not applicable. to
the Mill, it being nuder the control of the Central Govennnent, took the view
'I- that by vi1tue of tripartite settlement dated 27.4.1983 the benefits available
nuder the Bihar Act were given to the workmen. An employee was protected H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A of his rights and privileges as is evident from Section 12(1)(b) of the
Nationalisation Act, which, to the extent relevant, reads :

Section 12 - Continuance of employees -

(!) Every person who has been, immediately before the appointed
B day, employed in any undertaking of any of the jute companies
shall become, -

(a)

(b) where the undertakings of the jute companies are vested in the
c Jute Manufacturers Corporation, an employee of the said Cor-
poration, on and from the date of such vesting,

and shall hold office or service under the Central government or the
Jute Manufacturers Corporation, as the case may be, with the same
rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matters as
D would have been admissible to him if there had been no such vesting
and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment under the
Central Government or the Jute Manufacturers Corporation, as the
case may be, is duly terminated or until his remuneration and other
conditions of service are duly altered by the Central Government or
the Jute Manufacturers Corporation, as the case may be.
E
2) ..................... .

The Tribnnal further observed that the holidays would be regulated in the
manner specified in the Bihar Act as per the tripartite settlement aforemen-
F tioned. The Tribunal in para 8 of the award •lated that:

"As per the provision of the Section 13 of the Act, the benefits which
tlie workmen were getting are protected and cannot be denied by the ;..
Management and that they were enjoying 11 days' paid holiday and
the said benefit is protected by section 12 of the Nationalisation Act
G also.

The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant holding that the Award passed by the Tribunal, on consideration of
the totality of facts and circumstances of the case was justified. The Division
Bench of the High Court in the impugned order has stated that "it is an
H admitted position that 2nd October came to be declared as a paid holiday of
NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURERS CORPN. LTD. v. KATI HAR MAZDOOR SANGH [S. V. PATIL, J.] 1181
the workmen of the Mill in lieu of Deepawali, which was always granted to A
them as a holiday prior to 1979". The Division Bench referring to Section
13 of the Bihar Act held that the privilege, which was already available to
the workmen, could not be taken away. Finding no good reason to interfere
with the Award of the Tribunal and the order of the learned single Judge, the
Division Bench dismissed the;Letters Patent Appeal.
B
Before us the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the workmen
were given seven days casual \eave in addition to 10 days paid holidays after
taking over the Mill; I 0 days holidays are maintained; in other words, there
was no reduction in the paid holidays; there was only substitution of 2nd
October as paid h9liday in place of Deepawali paid holiday; thus neither c
rights nor privileges of the workmen were affected. The workmen were bound
by the terms of tripartite settlement dated 27.4.1983 and it was open to the
management to adjust 2nd October holiday in place of Deepawali holiday.
In support of his submissions he cited a decision of this Court in Indian
Oxygen /.Jd. v. State of Bihar, [1990] 2 SCC 254. In opposition the learned
counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned D
Award. It was added that on the facts and circumstances found in the case
on hand the Award passed by the Tribunal as confinned by the High Court
is unassailable.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for E
-'. the parties. Deepawali was a paid holiday to the workmen prior to 1979, is
a finding of fact recorded by the rribunal based on the evidence as stated
above and rightly so. Although the management contended that the provisions
of Bihar Act were not applicable to the appellant herein, the T1ibunal and
the High Court have found that by virtue of settlement dated 27.4.1983 and
in view of Section 12 of the Nationalisation Act and Section 13 of the Bihar F
Act, rights and privileges more favourable to the workmen could not be taken
away or affected. The said settlement itself indicates that the holidays were
to be regulated in the mauner specified and within the framework of the Bihar
Act and Rules made thereunder. The stand of the management appears to be
inconsistent. They say that the provisions of the Bihar Act do not apply to G
the appellant being under the control of the Central Government and that they
were obliged to declare 2nd October as a paid holiday under the same Act.
Section 13 reads:

"Where any employee of an industrial establishment is entitled to
such rights and privileges under any other law for the time being in H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A force or under any contract or custom or usage applying to the said
establishment, which are more favourable to him, then any right and
privileges conferred by this Act, nothing contained in this Act shall
affect such rights or privilege.

The decision of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellant
B in Indian Oxygen l.Jd. (supra), in our view, does not help the appellant. That
said decision was rendered in civil appeal filed against the judgment of the
High Court passed in the writ petition under Article 226 of the .Constitution
of India and did not arise from an industrial adjudication made by industrial
tribunal. Further the situation in that case was different as noticed by the High
c Court. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, as found by the
Tribunal as well as by the High Court, the said decision caunot be applied.

Considering all these aspects, in our view, it is not a case for interfer-
ence with the impugned Award. Therefore, finding no merit in tbe appeal it
is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
D
v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.