Case: The Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd.,Patna Vs. The Patna Electric Supply Workers'Union

this question once again. In dealing with the merits of the problem, it accepted the decision of the appellate tribunal in 1953 Lab AC 677 (supra) and observed that"where the basic wage and dearness allowance are consolidated, house rent at the normal time and the subsequent rise must be presumed to have been taken into account when the total consolidated amount was fixed".19. The same view was taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in National Carbon Co. (India) Ltd. v. National Carbon Co., Mazdoor Union, Calcutta, 1956 Lab AC 660. In that case the tribunal had directed the employer to pay his workmen house rent allowance because it had taken the view that in making the said order it was granting a relief lesser than granting free quarters which the employees had claimed and that the lesser was involved in the greater relief and could be granted by it. On the evidence adduced in the said proceedings the Labour Appellate Tribunal did not agree with this view. It held that"provision for free quarters by constructing houses cannot permit of comparison with payment of house rent allowance in money month after month to determine which is greater and which is smaller than the relief of providing free quarters".On this view the Labour Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to award house rent allowance when the dispute referred to it for adjudication was about free quarters.20. It is thus clear that industrial tribunals have consistently refused to entertain a claim for housing accommodation or for the grant of a special and separate housing allowance against their employers. That is why in making the award under appeal the tribunals below were at pains to emphasise the fact that the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government made the position substantially different so far as Bihar was concerned.21. The problem of housing industrial labour has been the subject-matter of some legislative enactments. As regards the workers employed in Plantations, the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951) provides that it shall be the duty of every employer to construct and maintain for every worker and his family residing in the plantation necessary housing accommodation subject to the other provisions of the Act. Housing Boards have also been established in different states to tackle the larger problem of housing in general. The Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Bom 69 of 1948), the Mysore Labour Housing Act, 1949 (Mys. 28 of 1949), the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh 43 of 1950), the Hyderabad Labour Housing Act, 1952 (Hyd. 36 0f 1952), the Saurashtra Housing Act, l954 (Saurashtra 32 of 1954) and the U. P. Industrial Housing Act, 1955 (U. P. 32 of 1955) are attempts made by the respective States to meet their responsibility in the matter of providing housing accommodation to its citizens in general and to industrial labour in particular.22. This problem appears to have been considered by the planing Commission in its report on the Second Five Year Plan. Chapter 26 of the report deals with the general problem of housing and ch. 27 deals with labour policy and programmes: The discussion of the problem in these two chapters shows that housing shortage can be conquered only by sustained and well-planned efforts made by the States and the industry together. It is a very big problem and involves the expenditure of a huge amount. Efforts are being made by the Central Government to invite the co-operation of industrial employers to tackle this problem with the progressively increasing financial and other assistance offered by the state Governments. But it is obvious that this problem cannot at present be tacked in isolation by industrial tribunals in dealing with housing demands made by employees in individual cases. In the present economic condition of our industries it would be inexpedient to impose this additional burden on the employers. Such an imposition may retard the progress of our industrial development and production and thereby prejudicially affect the national economy. Besides such an imposition on the employers would ultimately be passed by them to the consumers and that may result in an increase in prices, which is not desirable from a national point of view. It is true that the concept of social justice is not static and may expand with the growth and prosperity of our industries and a rise in our production and national income; but so far as the present state of our national economy, and the general financial condition of our industry are concerned it would be undesirable to think of introducing such an obligation on the employers today. That is why we think the industrial tribunal have very wisely refused to entertain pleas for housing accommodation made by workmen from time to time against their employers.23. In the present case it is clear that the question about the financial ability of the appellant to meet the additional burden imposed by the award has not been considered at all. In fact the tribunals below seem to have taken the view that since the appellant is bound by the scheme it is immaterial, if not irrelevant, to enquire whether the appellant would be able to meet the expenses involved in the construction of quarters as directed by the award. It is obvious that such a view proceeds on purely theoretical considerations which have no relation to existing facts in regard to the financial position of the industry or the state of national economy. In fairness to the tribunals we ought to add that if the tribunals had not taken an erroneous view about the effect of the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government they would not have granted the demand made by the respondent for housing accommodation.24. Since we hold that on the merits the award cannot be sustained we do not think it is necessary to consider whether the expenditure involved in the construction of quarters would be admissible under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]20. It is thus clear that industrial tribunals have consistently refused to entertain a claim for housing accommodation or for the grant of a special and separate housing allowance against their employers. That is why in making the award under appeal the tribunals below were at pains to emphasise the fact that the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government made the position substantially different so far as Bihar was concerned.21. The problem of housing industrial labour has been the subject-matter of some legislative enactments. As regards the workers employed in Plantations, the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951) provides that it shall be the duty of every employer to construct and maintain for every worker and his family residing in the plantation necessary housing accommodation subject to the other provisions of the Act. Housing Boards have also been established in different states to tackle the larger problem of housing in general. The Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Bom 69   of 1948), the Mysore Labour Housing Act, 1949 (Mys. 28 of 1949), the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh 43 of 1950), the Hyderabad Labour Housing Act, 1952 (Hyd. 36 0f 1952), the Saurashtra Housing Act, l954 (Saurashtra 32 of 1954) and the U. P. Industrial Housing Act, 1955 (U. P. 32 of 1955) are attempts made by the respective States to meet their responsibility in the matter of providing housing accommodation to its citizens in general and to industrial labour in particular.This problem appears to have been considered by the planing Commission in its report on the Second Five Year Plan. Chapter 26 of the report deals with the general problem of housing and ch. 27 deals with labour policy and programmes: The discussion of the problem in these two chapters shows that housing shortage can be conquered only by sustained and well-planned efforts made by the States and the industry together. It is a very big problem and involves the expenditure of a huge amount. Efforts are being made by the Central Government to invite the co-operation of industrial employers to tackle this problem with the progressively increasing financial and other assistance offered by the state Governments. But it is obvious that this problem cannot at present be tacked in isolation by industrial tribunals in dealing with housing demands made by employees in individual cases. In the present economic condition of our industries it would be inexpedient to impose this additional burden on the employers. Such an imposition may retard the progress of our industrial development and production and thereby prejudicially affect the national economy. Besides such an imposition on the employers would ultimately be passed by them to the consumers and that may result in an increase in prices, which is not desirable from a national point of view. It is true that the concept of social justice is not static and may expand with the growth and prosperity of our industries and a rise in our production and national income; but so far as the present state of our national economy, and the general financial condition of our industry are concerned it would be undesirable to think of introducing such an obligation on the employers today. That is why we think the industrial tribunal have very wisely refused to entertain pleas for housing accommodation made by workmen from time to time against their employers.23. In the present case it is clear that the question about the financial ability of the appellant to meet the additional burden imposed by the award has not been considered at all. In fact the tribunals below seem to have taken the view that since the appellant is bound by the scheme it is immaterial, if not irrelevant, to enquire whether the appellant would be able to meet the expenses involved in the construction of quarters as directed by the award. It is obvious that such a view proceeds on purely theoretical considerations which have no relation to existing facts in regard to the financial position of the industry or the state of national economy. In fairness to the tribunals we ought to add that if the tribunals had not taken an erroneous view about the effect of the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government they would not have granted the demand made by the respondent for housing accommodation.24. Since we hold that on the merits the award cannot be sustained we do not think it is necessary to consider whether the expenditure involved in the construction of quarters would be admissible under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act.