J. K. COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS CO., LTD. versus BADRI MALI AND OTHERS

IHI

124 St:JPREN:IE COURT REPORTS [19tl4] VOt.

be irrelevant when claims are made under s. 33C ( 2), where these claims are, as in the present case, based on an award and are intended merely to execute the award. In such case, limitation cannot be intro-duced by industrial adjudication on academic ground of social justice. It can be introduced, if at all, by the legislature. Therefore, we think that the Labour Court was right in rejecting the appellant's conten-tion that since the present claim was belated, it should not be awarded.

In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.

Appeals diamiuei.

J. K. COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS Co., Ltd.

BADRI MALI AND OTHERS

(P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR, K.. N. WANOJIOO, and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)

lruiurial DiBpute-Definition of 'worker'.-MaliB u.WAer tMWkera-JlaliB whether induatrial employee&-" Employed in any '1iduatr1/'-Meaning-Principle of incide11tal relati0111Jhip--: Gninl of 'leave' on ground of fair play and social juatice-Valldity-(]oncept of •OcUd justice-Uttar Praie&h Industrial l>NpvleB Acl, 1947 (U.P. 28 of 19il7), s. 2-Induatrial !Mpulsa ..tel, lfl''I (1' of 1947), •· 2 (s).

An Industrial diaputc was referred by the Government of U«ar Pradesh for adjudication to the Adjudicator, Kaupur. The Adjudicator held that the Malis were worlimen under . the U.l'.' Industrial Disputes Act but they were not Industrial employees arid hence were not entitled to claim dear food allowance under the Government order dated December 6, 1948. ThO claiioa of the Malis with regard to weekly holidays and leave with wages were also rejected by the Adjudicator.

SUP.REME COURT REPORTS

Two cross appeals were filed against the order of the Adjudicator before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed. As regards the appeal of respondents, the Tribunal gave the Malis beneht of dear food allowance. Their claim for leave with wages was also allowed on the ground of social justice. However, their claim fo• weekly holiday was rejected.

/. /{, Col14" ·~1., t!I w.-.,.Mills ~~"Lil. v. WiMall

The appellant filed writ petition in the Allahabad High Court but that was dismissed as infructuous. The appellant came to this court by special leave.

The contentions raised by the appellant in this court wtte that the Malis were not workers within the meaning of s. 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, that Malis were not industrial employees within the meaning of Government order dated December 6, 1948, and hence were not entitled to dear food allowance and that the Labour Appellate Tribun<1l should not have granted the demand of the respondents for leave on ground of fair-play and social justice.

Held that the Malis were workers within the meaning <>f s. 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. They were employed by the appellant, were paid by it and were subject to its confrol and supervision and discharged the .function of looking after the properties of the appellant. Their conditions of service were also determined by the appellant and the con-tinuance of their service also depended upon the pleasure of the appellant •. The bungalows and gardens on which they worked were kind of amenity supplied by the appellant to its officers. Hence, the Mal is were engaged in operations which were incidentally connected with the main industry <;arried on by the eilfployer. The ease of the Mal is was similar to that of the bus drivers. The relation of the work earned on· by the Malis with the Industry was not remote, indirect or far-fetl::hed.

The employee who is engaged in any work or operati<>n which is incidentally connected with the main industry of the employer is workman, provided the other requirements of s. 2 (s) of'the industrial Disputes Act are satisfied.

Held also, that the Malis were industrial employ~ within the meaning of tha Government order dated December 6, 1948 and hence were entitled to c[1]aim the benefit of dear food allowance. The Tribunal was in error in limiting the scope of the u9'W~ssion "fod~s!rial employ;es". by reference to l the d'efimtlon of the word "worker" as $1Ven m the l'actorics Ac~.

J, K. C.t,_ S;iMi1t1 & w,..;01 MUls c.., LUI. •• &iri M•li

Held also, that the Tribunal was justified in granting the demand of the respondents for leave on grounds of fair-play and social justice. The concept of social justice has now be· come such an integral part of industrial law that it is idle for any party to suggest that industrial adjudication can or should ignore the claims of social justice in dealing with industrial di1putos. The concept of social justice is not narrow, one-sided or pedantic and is not confined to industrial adjudication alone. lts sweep is comprehensive. It is founded on the basic ideal of socio-economic equality and its aim is to assist the removal of socio-economic disparities and'inequalities. In dealing with industrial matters, it does not adopt doctrinaire approach and refuses to yield blindly to abstract notions, but adopts realistic and pragmatic approach. It endeavours to resolve the competing claims of employers and employees by finding solution which is just and fair to both parties with the object of c1tablishing harmony between capita <! labour and good rdationship.

Shri Bhikari, Kanpur v. Messrs. Oooper Allen & Oo., Kanpur, 1952 L.A.C. 298 ; 1'he Upper India Ghini Mille Mat.door Union v. The Upper India Sugar Mill•, 1953 L.A.C. 870 ; Tho Suti Mill Malllloor Sabha, Kanpur v. M ef&rB. The British India Oorporation Ltd., Kanpur, 1956 L.A.C. 549; J.K. Iron & Steel Go. Ltd., Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel Mardoor Union, Kanpur, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 1315 ; Muir Milla Go. Ltd. v. Suli Mill• Mat.door Union, Kanpur, [1955] l S C.R. 991; Mesar1. Grol/Jn Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen, [1958] S.C.R. 651 and The State of My.ore v. Tho WorkerB of Gold MinOB, [1959] S.C.R. 895, referred to.

CrvIL APl'ELLATEjURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Noa. 48<1 & 481 of 1962.

Appeals by special leave from the order dated

March 10, 1958 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Nos. 1006 and 1007 of 1955, and from the decision dated July 15, 1955 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, III Bench in Appeal Nos. 111-274 and 300 of 1954.

G. 8. Pathak and G. O. Mathur, for the appe·

Han ts.

lf.. S. Hajela and O.P. Lal, for respondent No. 2 (ID • .A. No, 480 of 1962).

3 S.C.R. StJPRE~E COURT REPORTS

J.P. Goyal, for respondents Nos. 3 to 12 (in

C.A. No.'480of1962) and the respondents (in C.A. No. 481 of 1962).

1963. May 9. The Judgment of the court was de Ii vered by

GAJENDMGADKAR J.-An Industrial dispute

which arose between the appellant, J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co., Ltd., and the res-pondents, its employees, was referred by the Govern-ment of Uttar Pradesh for adjudication to the Adjudicator, Kanpur, on November, 30, 1953. This dispute covered two items of claim made by the respondents. The first item was in regard to the dismissal of gardener (Mali) Badri by name. The respondents urged that the said dismissal was unlaw-ful and Badi"i was entitled to reinstatement with all the wages during the period of his enforced unem-ployment. The second item of dispute was in regard to the claim made by the 10 Malis employed by the lppellant to receive dear food allowance, weekly liolidays and leave with wages.Before the Adjudicator, the appellant contended that the Malis were not workmen within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 28of 194 7), and so, the reference was invalid. It was also urged by the appellant that the claim made by the respondents for dear food allowance could not be sustained, because G.O. No. 3754 (LL)/XVIII-894 (L)-1948 issued by the U.P. Government on December 6, 1948, was inapplicable to the Malis inas-much as the said Government order applied only to industrial employees and the Malis are not industrial employees within the meaning of the said order. The other claims made by the respondents for weekly holidays and leave with wages ''lere also resisted on the ground that the Malis w<:re &lot workmen under

1.1>. c.11 • .a~., Ill WHJ/•1 MUl1 ... ""'· v. .llo<lri Moli

7.28 SUPREME COURT REP0RTS [1964) VOL.

tl,ie Act, and so, they were entitled to no relief in the present proceedings.

J .J:. Ct1IM Sf1Uutbi1 •ti w,..; ·.Milli " I. co;;"l,tJ. -· .,, .. ' 4/~¥oli Gcjtrulrcgadt., I.

The Adjudicator held that the Malis were workmen under the Act, and so, he rejected the appellant's contention that .the reference was bad. On the merits, he found that the dismissal of Badri was without justification, and so, he was entitled to reinstatement. He also ordered that the appellant should pay Badri half his wages at Rs. 45/-p.m. as compensation from the date of his dismissal to the date of hi! reinstatement. That is how the first item of dispute was decided by the Adjudicator. On ,the · second item of dispute, the Adjudicator found that the Malis were not industrial employees, and so, they were not entitled to claim dear food allowance unC!er the relevant Government order. The other claims made ,by the Malis with regard to weekly holidays and ]eave with wages were likewise rejected by the Adjudicator. In other words, the second item of dispute was decided against the respondents. This award was pronounced on May, 31 1954.

The decision of the Adjudicator gave rise to two appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appellant by its appeal No. 300 of 1954 disputi;? the correctness of the Adjudicator's conclusion tha'.t Badri was . workman and that his dismissal was unjustified. The Labour Appellate Tribunal .has rejected this contention and the appellant's app'e'al was dismissed. The respondents by their appeal No. 274/1954 contended that the Adjudicator was in error in holding that the Malis were not indus.· trial employees and as such, were not entitled fo dear food allowance. The Labour Appellate Tribu-nal has upheld this plea and has given the Malis 'the benefit of the provision contained in the relevant Government order in respect of dear food allowance~ The cJajm of the respondents for weekly 'holiday was, lfo•1ever, rejected by the Labour· Appellate

3 s.c.R

SUPllB.a QOUllT UPOllTS

'I'rJ.~u~~l. waile their claim fo.r leavJ: with wages was allowed, and direction was issued that the Malis in question should be given leave in the riii!Ane)'.' prescribed by s,ection 79 of the Factories Act (No. 63 of 1948). The Labour Appellate Tri-l?.l\nM held that though the said Act was, in terms, not applicable to the Malis, the principle on which tl;:ie statutory provision for leave pre~ribed by s. 79 \fas \>ased was principle of social justice, and so, the Malis were entitled to have similar benefit. The respondents had also claimed that Badri shou Id l?e given the full wages for the period of his enforced unemployment instead of Rs. 45/-p.m. a.q allowed by the Adjudicator. This plea has also been upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In the result, the respondents' appeal subst.antially succeeded. The decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was proll~:mnced on 15. 7.1955.

This decision was challenged by the appellaat

before the Allahabad High· Court by preferring writ petition No. 1006/1H55. It was urged by the appeliant that the decision of the Labou,r Appe-llate Tribunal was patently erroneous and illegal, and so, it shou.ld be quashed under Art. 226 of the Consti-tution. Whilst the writ petition was pending in tlte s'aid'High Court, the Bench of the Labour Appellate Ti'ibunal that sat at Lucknow ceased to exist, and 'so, the High Court took the view that it had no junsdic-tion to entertain writ petition in respect of the dei:i-sion of the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was not functioning within the limits of its territorial juri, diction. That is why the said writ petition was dis-missed as having become infructuous. This dicision was pronounced on March 10, 1958.

The two present appeals Nos. 480 & 481/1962 have been brought to this Court by the appellantb'y · spi;c,~al leaye, and ~hey are di~e<;ted against the deci-sigp Qf the l;l;igh Gol\rt dismi~ing the apRella~t's

''° ,,,., c.~ $,.. .. , & "ct"!.tt!i/ls •• 11.'!fi M•li G•J1iWatdlwr /. • ,, .. tt· '

~ J: ;f!"Cottb~ Spidning ·l? ·~-~tJtiini Milli Lo .• Lid ' ,. . . ' Batlri Mali

G•jnulr«z•ik., .. e•~7"~' J.

writ petition and against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal respectively. Mr Pathak who appeared before us for the appellant stated that he did not propose to argue Civil Appeal No. 480/1962, because this Court's decision ju Civil Appeal No. 481/1962 would determine the dispute between the parties. Civil Appeal No. 480/1962 has in that ·ense become unnecessary, because the merits of the main dispute are raised by the appellant in its appeal No. 481/1962 which is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribun:il. We would, therefore, deal with Civil Appeal No. 481/1962 only.

In this appeal, Mr. Pathak has not disputed the correctness or propriety of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in regard to the claim niade by the respondents· in respect of Badri's dismis-sal. So, that part of the dispute need not detain us in the present appeal. The principal contention which has been seriously pressed before us by Mr. Pathak is that the Labour Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the Malis are workmen under section 2 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant . time, provided, inter alia , that in this Act the expression "workman" shall have the meaning ~assigned to it in s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, and that takes us to s. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) which defines workman. Secticn 2 (s), inter alia, provi· des that "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied; and so, the question is whether the 10 Malis whose claims have given rise to the present reference can be said to be workmen under s. 2 (s).

For deciding this point, it is necessary to refer to the relevant facts as they have been fou11d by the

3 S.C.lt

StJl'REME COURT REPORTS

Tribunals below. The 10 Mails have been appoin-ted by the appellant for the maintenance of !(ardens attached to the bungalows of some of the officers of the Mills which are situated in the compoun, of the Mills, while othe1s are employed for looking after the gardens attached to Kamla Niwas which is resedential building allotted to the Governing Director of the Mills and which is also situated within the compound of the Mills. Some of these Malis have also to work in the gardens attached to the residential building of the Director-in-charge of the Mills. The gardens which are looked after by these Malis are not the gardens attached to the Mills as such. It appears that in the large and expansive colony or the Mills, the factory of the Mills is inside compound. Outside this componnd of the factory, but within the colony of the Mills, are situated the bungalows occupied by the officers of the Mills and the Director. It is the gardens attached to these bungalows that are looked after by the 10 Malis.

It is also clear that the Malis are appointed by the appellant. The total month I y wages of these 10 Malis come to about Rs. 450i·· The appellant collects small amount from the officers as contri-bution to the salaries of these Malis and the bulk of it approximating to 78 % is paid by the appellant. The contributions made by the officers are credited to the revenue of the appellant and from the funds of the appellant, the Malis are paid their wages and they are debited in the accounts of the appellant. The names of the Malis are borne on register main-tained by the clerk of the appellant who supervises their work. This clerk notes their attendance from day to day. Their appointment is made by the appellant, their work is supervised and controlled by the appellant and they are liable to be dismissed by the appellant. The officers who are allotted the bi.mgalows have no control over the Malis and can exercise no jurisdiction over them. . It is in the light

J.K. Col,.,, Spi .. i•1 & W1•tin1 Miiii C1., Ltl. v. Buri Mali

1905 1,:·

J .Ii". C•Utn S;innU.1 !ii W~tMills .CO., Ltd. v. 8-'ri Mali Gaj.urag.Okar J.

of these facts that the question raised by Mr. Pathak in regard to the status of the Malis has to be determined.

Mr. Pathak contends that the crucial words used

in the definition prescribed by s. 2 (s) are "employed in any industry''. He argues that before any person can claim to be workman under s. 2 (s), it must be shown that he has been employed in the industry of the employer. The industry of the appellant is spinning and weaving ope-rations and, says Mr. Pathak, the Malis have obviously nothing to do either with the spinning or weaving operations of the appellant; since they are not employed in the industry of the appellant, the fact that they have been employed by the appellant would not make them workmen within the meaning of the Act. Thus presented, the ariu-ment is no doubt prima jacie attractive; but as soon as we begin to examine it more carefully, it breaks down. If the construction for which Mr. Pathak contends is accepted without any modification, clerks employed in the factory would not be workmen, be-cause on the test suggested by Mr. Pathak, they are not employed in the spinning or weaving operation carried on by the appellant and yet, there is no doubt that clerks employed by the appellant to db Clerical work are workmen under s. 2 (s), arid so; the literal construction of the clause "empliiyed in any industry" cannot be accepted and that means that "employed in any industry" must take in emp-loyees who are employed in connection with opera-tions incidental to the main industry, and once we are compelled to introduce this concept of incidental connection with the main industry, the literal cons-truction for which the appellant contends· has to be rejected.

It is, of course, not very easy to decide what .is the field of employment included by the principle .of incidental r.elatio.nship, and· wha,t ,would, be .the

lim,i,tat\oµs .of tJ,le s!'!id p~~uciple? lf ,sweepi:i;s !U:e

employed by the appellant to clean the premises of the Mills, that clearly would be work incidental to the main industry itself, because though the work of the sweepers has no direct relation either with the spin-ning or weaving, it is so manifestly necassary for the efficient functioning of the indus'.ry itself that it would be irrational to exclude sweepers from the purview of s. 2 {s). If buses are owned by the industry for transporting the workmen, would the drivers of such buses be workmen or not? It would be noticed that the incidental connection in the present illustration is one degree removed from the main industry; the workmen who work in the industry are intended to be brought to the factory by the buses and it is these , buses that the drivers run. Even so, it would not be easy to exclude drivers of buses engaged by the factory solely for the purpose of transporting its employees to the Mills from their regpective homes and back, on the basis that they are not workmen under s. 2 (s). Mr. Pathak was unable to resist the exten· sion of the definition to such cases; but, nevertheless, he attempted to argue that though sweepers who sweep the premises of the factory may be called workmen, sweepers who sweep the area around the factory may not be included under s. 2 (s). Sweeping the. area outside the factory, it is argued, may be incidentally connected with the main industry, but the incidental connection is indirect and remote, and so, this class of employees must be excluded from the definition. We are not prepared to accept this argument. In our opinion, an employee who is engaged in any work or operation which is incidentally connected with the main industry of the employer would be workman, provided the other requirements of s. 2 (s) are satisfied.In this connection, it is hardly necessary to emphasise that• in the modern world industrial operations have become complex and complicated and for the efficient· and successful functioning of

196J J,1:;, CotiO. s}i~1 & W ,..,;., Mi//, Co,, LIJ. •• B.ir1 Moli Gojar4roji'i"4r J.

J,K. C111011 5pi1lni11g ' & ,Wo,v.ing }.fills c~., ltd. .. Badti Mali

f?ojeruh-~gadkar J,

any industry, several incidental operations arc called in aid and it is the totality of all these operations that ultimately constitutes the industry as whole. Wherever it is shown that the industry has employed an employee to assist one or the other operation incidental to the main industrial operation, it would be unreasonable to deny such an employee the status 'Jf workman on the ground that his work is not Jirectly concerned with the main work or operation Jf the ind us try. J{ everting to the illustration of the buses owned by the factory for the purpose of trans-porting its workmen, if the bus drivers can legiti-mately be held to assiSt an operation incidental to the main work of the industry, we do not see why Mali should not claim that he is also engaged in an operation which is incidental to the main industry.

While we are dealing with this point, it is necessary to bear in mind that the bungalows are owned by the appellant and they are allotted to the officers as required by the terms and conditions of the officers' employmeqt. Since the bungalows are allotted to the officers, it is the_ duty of the appellant to_ look after the bungalows and take care of the gardens attached to them .. _If the terms and condi~ tions of service require that the officers should be given bungalows and gardens are attached to such bungalows, it is difficult to see why in the case of Malis who are employed by the appellant, are paid by it, and who work subject to its control and supervision and discharge the function of looking after the appellant's property, it should be said that the work done by . them has no relation with the industry carried on by the appellant. The employment is by the appellant, the conditions of service are determined by the appell:; ut, the payment is substantially by . the appellant,. the · continu-ance of service depends . upon the . pleasure of the al?pellant, subject, ofcourse, to. the Standing

3 S:C;R.

Orders prescribed in that behalf, and the work assigned to the Malis is the work of looking after the properties which have been allotted to the officers of the appellant. Like the transport amenity provided by factory to its employees, bungalows and gardens are also kind of amenity supplied by the employer to his officers and the drivers who look after the buses and the Malis who look after the gardens must, therefore, be held to be engaged in operations which are incidentally connected with the main industry carried on by the employer. It is true that in matters of this kind it is not easy to draw line, and it may also be conceded that in dealing with the question of incidental relationship with the main industrial operation, limit has to be prescribed so a11 to exclude operations or activities whose relation with the main industrial activity may be remote, indirect and far-fetched. We are not prepared to hold that the relation of the work carried on by the Malis in the present case can be characterised as remote, indirect or far-fetched. That is why we think that the Labour Appellate Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that Malis are workmen under the Act.Before we part with this point, we would like to add that industrial adjudication appears consis· tantly to have taken the view that Malis looking after the gardens attached to the bungalows occupied by officers of any industrial concern are workmen under s. 2 (s). Our attention has been drawn to two decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dealing with this question. In Shri Bhikari, Kanpur v. Messrs. Cooper Allen & Oo., Kanpur, (') the Labour Appellate Tribunal while dealing with the case of Bhikari who was engaged as gardener by the Company and was 011 the pay· roll of the Com-pany observed that the Tribunal failed to see why he is not to be regarded as workman within the meaning of s. 2 (s) of th!! Industrial Disputes Act which

(I) (1952] L, A. 0, ~.

/!J6j J.K. Cottdn SJinllin1 I!/ w...,;•g Mills Co ,.;Ltd1 v. BadriM•li

738 SUPRBMB COURT RBP'ORTs [1964] VOL~·

definition has been adopted by the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act under which the case was started. The same view was taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case of The Uppe.T India Chini .Mills Mazdoor Union v. The Upper India Su;gar Milla ('). Dealing with the case of Rati Ram who was engaged as Mali, the Tribunal rejected the employer's contention that the said Mali was domestic servant and observed that merely because the Company chooses to put Rati Ram on the work of gardner with the Managing Director which the Company is admittedly required to provide for and pay for, it does not follow that Rati Ram became domestic servant. It is remarkable that both these decisions which are directly in point, were under s. 2 of the Act with which we are concerned. In dealing with industrial dispute we are reluctant to in-terfere with the well established and consistent course of decisions pronounced by the Labour Appellate Court unless, of course, it is shown that the said decisions are plainly erroneous.

/HJ '·"· Ill w•,•~Uv c,i,.,, srnm., Mills c.., .. '''· B•dri M.Ji

The next question which calls for our decision

is whether the Malis are industrial employees within the meaning of the relevant G. O. The said G. O. opens with two operative paragraphs · which are followed by the table of minimum basic wages prescribed by it and other paragraphs. These first two paragraphs read thus :

" ( 1) This order shall he deemed to have

come into force with effect from December, 1, 1948 and sha,11, in respect of the matters. covered by it, bind all the industries affected thereby and the workmen employed therein.

(2) The minimum basic wage payable to employees (industrial or clerical) in the various industries and undertakings specified in column I of Table I hereunder shall, so long as this

(1) liP ... A; c, &70.

order remains in force, be the amounts menti-oned against them in column 2 or 3 thereof, as the case may be,"

1969 IX. C•tton ,SPintiJal fY W .. oiill Milli Co., Ltil; . y, Badri M•li

Paragraph 3 prescribes the dear food allowance, and it is in respect of this claim made by the respondents that the appc;llant has raised the contention that this paragraph does not apply, because the Malis are not industrial employees. It will be noticed that the first paragraph makes it perfectly clear that the order binds all the industries affected by it and the workmen employed therein ; ·so that as soon as it is held that the Malis are workmen under s. 2 of the Act, it would follow that the order would apply to the Malis. In considering the present point. it is necessary to bear in mind that this order has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (b) and (g) of section 3 of the Act, and that clearly means that persons who are workmen under 1. 2 of the Act are referred to by paragraph I and there would be no escape from the conclusion that the order would apply to such workmen and the Ind· ustries that employed them.

It is, however, urged that in paragraph 2, the

minimum basic wage is specified as being payable to employees, industrial, or clerical, in the vario•S industries and the suggestion is that it is only employees who are either industrial or clerical to whom the order applies. Industrial employees are not defined; but it is assumed by the appellant in urging this argument that the class of industrial employees would be narrower than the class of workmen covered by s. 2 of the Act. In our opinion, this argument is wholly fallacious. It is clear that the second paragraph refers to industrial or clerical employees, because the table prescribing the mini-m um basic wages divides the employees into two categories, industrial and clerical. It is only because his division is made by the table that for the

/.K. Cati.. Sji...., &,W,..;n, Mi/11 Co., Ltd. •• Bairi Moli

738 SUPRBNm COURT REPORTS [1964] VOil..

purpose of clarification, paragraph 2 mentions industrial or clerical in bracket after referring to the employees. Besides it would be unreasonable to assume that when the order prescribed minimum basic wages for workmen to whom paragraph 1 expressly refers, it could have been intended that the said minimum basic wages should not be extend-ed to some workmen falling under paragraph 1 because they do not fall under the category of indus-trial employees or clerical employees. The scheme of the order is plain and unambiguous ; to all workmen falling under s. 2 the benefits of the order are intended to be extended. That is the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and, in our opinion, that view is obviously right. If that be so, the validity of the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding the respondents' claim for dear food allowance under paragraph 3 of the G.O. cannot be questioned.

It is true that in The Buti Mill Mazdoor Sabha Kanpur v. Messrs. The British Indian Corporation Ltd. Kanpur ([1]), the Labour Appellate Tribunal appears to have taken the view that the expression "industrial employees" is limited to the class of employees who are employed directly or indirectly for the purpose of manufacturing process carried on by the factory. In coming to this conclusion, the Labour Appellate Tribunal noticed the fact that the expression "industrial employees" had not been defined, but it was disposed to drive assistance from tlie definition of the word "worker" in the Factories Act in determining the scope of the · expression "industrial employees". No doubt, it wa~ urged before the Tribunal that expression "iudustrial employees" should be understood in the same com-prehensive sense as the word "industry" as defined in the industrial Disputes Act, but this contention was rejected by the Tribunal. It seems to us that the Tribunal was in error in limiting the scope of

(I) 1956 L,A,C,. 549,

the. expression "industrial employees" by reference

to the definition of the word "worker" prescribed by the Factories Act. Indeed, it would be relevant and appropriate to refer to the definition of the word "workman" under s. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, because the G.O. in question has been issued under the Act and the definition of "work-man" prescribed by s. 2 of the Act as s. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would determine the true denotation of the expression "industrial employees". We must accordingly hold that the Labour Appellate Tribunkl was in error in accepting the very narrow construction of the expression "industrial employees" used m the Government order. ·The next point which has been urged before us by Mr. Pathak is in regard to the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding the benefit of leave to the respondcn:s on the same lines ass. 79 of the Factories Act. Mr. Pathak attempted to argue that the c1aim for leave had . been made specifically on the basis of provisions of the Factories Act and the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establish· men ts Act, and he suggested that as soon as it was found that these two Acts were inapplicable to the Malis, the said claim should have been rejected. The Labour Appellate Tribunal has, however, held that though the said two Acts do not apply, claim for leave can be justified on the ground of social justice. Mr. Pathak objects to this decision on the technical ground that the claim itself was based on the provisions of the said two Acts and no other. This contention is not well-founded. lt does appear that in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents reference is made to the said two Acts, but in the prayer clause the claim is made in general terms without reference to the Acts, and the reference itself is in general terms and makes n0 mention of the said two Acts. Therefore, the (echnical. ground urged by Mr. Pathak tha,t · t~~ '. '' ,)

J.K. c.ttoo S/>IMIM1 llW.....,MUll c.., Uil. BM; -v. "'"'i ~,*rl.

IHI v'

. . v' 1.a:. c.i. $iinain1 •·!ti . . . Mills " o::'l":· •• """!. ~~j G~.I.

740 ~µit~ENIE COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL ..

relevant claim was made on the provisions of the twcl spedfied Acts and should be rejected 'solely on the ground that the said Acts do not apply, cannot be sustained. It was general reference which the Adjudicator wa8 called upon to decide and the fact that the said two Acts did not apply, cannot be said to rule out the said claim as to leave in limine.

Then Mr. Pathak was driven to contend that the ground of social justice given by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in support of its award is really not sound in law, and he referred us to the obser-vations made by this Court on some occasions that the considerations of social justice were "not only irrelevant but untenable" vide J.K. Iron & Steel Oo., Ltd. Kanpw v. The Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur('), and Muir Milla Oo., Ltd. v. Suti Milla Mazdoor Union, Kanpur.('), In our opinion, the argument that the considerations of social justice are irrelevant and untenable in dealing with in-dustrial disputes, has to be rejected without any hesitation. The development of industrial law during the last decade and several decisions of this Court in dealing with industrial matters have emphasised the relevance, validity and significance of the doctrine of social justice, vide Messrs. Grown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen, ([1]) and The State of Mysore v. The Workers of Gold Mines (*). Indeed the concept of social justice has now become such an integral part of industrial law that it would be idle for any party to suggest that industrial adjudication can or should ignore the claims of social justice in dealing with industrial disputes. The concept of social justice is not narrow, one-sided, or pedantic, and is not confined to industrial adjudication alone. ltS sweep is comprehensive. It is founded on the basic ideal of socio-economic equality and its aim is to assist the removal of socio-economic disparities : and inequalities ; nevertheless, in dealing with indU'.atrial' matters, it does not adopt doctrinaire • (I) U!l95! 2 &.C.R. 1315. (2) [1951] I B.C.11. 9111, (I) 119581 S.C,R. 65J, (t) 11"91 S,C,R, 1195.

3 S.C.R.

approach and refmes to yield blindly to . abstract notions, but adopts realistic arid pragmatic approach. It, therefore, endeavours to resolve the competing claims of employers and employees by finding solution which is just and fair to both parties with the object of establishing harmony between capital and Labour, and good relationship. The ultimate object of industrial adjudication is to help the growth and progress of national economy and it is with that ultimate object in view that industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudica-tion on principles of fair-play and justice. That is the reason why on several occasions, industrial adjudication has thought it fit to make reasonable provision for 1 eave in respect of the workmen who may not strictly fall within the purview of the Factories Act or the Shops and Commercial Establish-ments Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no substance in the grii:vance made by Mr. Pathak that the Labour Appellate Tribunal should not have . granted the demand of the respondents for leave on grounds of fair-play and social justice.

-~ r:.t• elW...U.,Mil/I c.., l.td.J v. Boari Moli _,_

J.X. r:.t• s~

The result is, Civil Appeal No. 481/1962 fails and is dismissed with costs. Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1962 has not been pressed and is, therefore, dis-missed. There would be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismi.!sed.