Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
GHAZIABAD ENGINEERING CO. (P) LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CERTIFYING OFFICER, KANPUR AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1978
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1978 AIR 769 1978 SCR (2) 534
1978 SCC (1) 480
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Questions of fact
cannot be canvassed for invoking the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.
Casual leave, concept of and whether has nexus with total
number of days leave that a worker is entitled-Value of
current trend in a particular area or industry-Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 r/w S. 79(1) of
Factories Act, 1948.
HEADNOTE:
As against the claim of twelve days casual leave (on a paid
basis) made by the workmen of the appellant company and for
modification of the Standing Orders under the Industrial
Employment (Standing orders) Act 1946, and the rules framed
thereunder, the certifying officer, taking into
consideration (a) the financial position of the appellant’s
undertaking including it having paid 20% bonus to its
workers (b) the prevalent practice in neighbouring
industries in that industrial belt of giving paid casual
leave, and (c) the current trend in that particular
industrial area, granted the modification reducing the
number of days to six, as being fair and reasonable. The
appellate authority confirmed the said modification.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD : 1. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Art. 136 cannot
be exploited for canvassing pure questions of fact. [535 E]
2. Casual leave is not an automatic, advantage to the
total number of days’ leave that a worker is entitled.
Casual leave is not a matter of right and it is only in the
event of sudden emergencies that casual leave is allowed.
Unforeseen circumstances may unexpectedly prop up
necessitating sudden absence of an employee, be he in
Government service or any other office or in an industrial
undertaking. The whole concept of casual leave is
calculated to provide for such contingencies. [535 G-H; 536
A]
3. A certain number of days’ leave prescribed in S. 79(1)
is the minimum and not the maximum. Current trend in a
particular area or industry has not the force of law. It
may have persuasive value but not more, in considering the
claim for casual leave.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
In the instant case; (1) There is nothing grossly unfair or
shockingly violative of fairness or justice warranting
interference by this Court by exercise of its special
jurisdiction. After all the excess is around three days in
a year over the current trend of granting an overall maximum
of thirty days, which circumstance the Tribunal has taken
note of. [535 F, 536 C-D]
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [1963] 1 SCR 297
reiterated.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2171
of
1970.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated 30-3-1970 of
the Appellate Authority Allahabad (Industrial Tribunal) in
Standing. Order Appeal No. 8/69.
K. P. Gupta for the Appellant.
5 3 5
G. N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-This appeal by special leave raises a short
question which has been decided adverse to the appellant by
the certifying officer, Kanpur and the Industrial Tribunal
which is the appellate authority. The narrow point that
falls for decision is as to whether the modification of the
Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946 and the rules framed thereunder was
illegally made by the certifying officer. The
modification,itself related to grant of six days’ casual
leave (on a paid basis) to the workers in the appellant’s
factory in Ghaziabad. The certifying officer has considered
this grant of casual leave as fair and reasonable having
regard to the prevalent practice in the neighbouring
industries of this industrial belt and also paying attention
to the financial position of the appellant’s undertaking.
For this purpose he has relied upon the fact that 20% bonus
was paid under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and has
’further stated that certain other factories have been
giving paid casual leave for their workers. These facts
persuaded him to grant the modification although reducing
the number of days to six as against twelve which the
workers. originally claimed.
The appellate authority concurred by a separate discussion
in the same, conclusion. We are requested by Shri Gupta to
reverse this concurrent refinding of fact on two grounds.
He states that the undertaking of the appellant is a losing
proposition and relies upon certain balance sheets stated to
have been produced before the certifying officer. He also
argues that there is no positive material to make out that
other industries in the locality are graning casual leave
for their workers.
These are pure questions of fact and this Court’s
jurisdiction under Art. 136 cannot be exploited for
canvassing points such as these. It is clear that the
modification was within the jurisdiction of the certifying
officer and he has not contravened any provision of the Act
or any statute. The Factories Act, 1948 prescribes in S.
79(1) a certain number of days’ leave but this is the
minimum and not the maximum as has been indicated in this
Court’s ruling in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v.
Workmen(1). Moreover, the model Standing Orders as well as
the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Act, 1946 deal with casual leave. In this view there is
nothing illegal in the order impugned nor are we satisfied
that there is anything shockingly violative of fairness or
justice. It is a notorious fact that casual leave is not an
automatic advantage to the total number of days’ leave that
a worker is entitled. It is only in the event of sudden
emergencies that casual leave is allowed and so the
grievance of the appellant is exaggerated, if not imaginary.
Apart from this, it is elementary that unforeseen
circumstances may unexpectedly prop up necessitating sudden
absence of an employee, be he in Government service or any
other ,offices or in an industrial undertaking. The whole
concept of casual
(1) [1963] 1 S.C.R. 297.
536
leave is calculated to provide for such contingencies. We,
see nothing unfair in the certifying officer according six
days by way of casual leave to the workers. After all the
contentment of the workers is an essential component of
their efficiency and if the certifying officer and the
Appellate Authority who deal regularly with such matters
have felt that this step was fair and nothing is shown to
our satisfaction that there is anything grossly unfair about
this modification, we should not interfere by exercise of
the special jurisdiction of this Court.
The third point put forward by Shri Gupta was that according
to the appellate Tribunal, the current trend is to grant an
overall maximum of thirty days leave while in this case if
the casual leave is also taken into account it may extend to
33-1/2 days leave. As pointed out earlier, casual leave is
not a matter of right and a man may not got casual leave
unless circumstances are sudden or which in the ordinary
course cannot be met by taking regular leave. Secondly, we
are not satisfied that the current trend in a particular
area or industry has the force of law. It may have
persuasive value but not more. That is why after taking
note of that circumstance, the Tribunal has still chosen to
affirm the claim for six days casual leave. After all the
excess is around three days in a year.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal, but, in the
circumstances, without costs,
S. R. Appeal dismissed.
537