Case: M/S. Tata Iron &amp; Steel Co. Ltd Vs. The Workmen &amp; Ors

concession or privilege or change in usage" is also wide enough to take within its fold the change of weekly holidays from Sunday to some other day of the week, because it seems to us to be a plausible argument to urge that fixation of Sundays as weekly rest days is founded on usage and/or is treated as a customary privilege and any change in such weekly holidays would fall within the expressions "change in usage" or "customary privilege". 13. We are not unmindful of the force of the argument pressed on behalf of the appellant that if a holiday is changed from Sunday to some other week day it would not affect the material gain or financial benefit available to the workmen because the workmen would nonetheless get one day off with pay in a week. Whether the paid day of rest is a Sunday or some other week day would not doubt cause no financial loss to the workmen. But the financial benefit cannot be the sole criterion in considering this question. In this connection it must not be ignored that due to long usage and other factors Sunday as a holiday may for conceivable reasons have assumed importance for workmen. For certain classes of workmen Sunday as a weekly rest day may also have special significance. Workmen may, for example, also generally like to have weekly rest day on a Sunday when their School going children have a holiday so that the entire family may be able to take part in recreational or other social activities. This consideration has its own importance. If that be so, then, notice for effecting such a change would be within the contemplation of Section 9-A. Further the real object and purpose of enacting Section 9-A seems to be to afford an opportunity to the workmen to consider the effect of the proposed change and if necessary to present their point of view on the proposal. Such consultation further serves to stimulate a feeling of common joint interest of the management and workmen in the industrial progress and increased productivity. This approach on the part of the industrial employer would reflect his harmonious and sympathetic co-operation in improving the status and dignity of the Industrial employee in accordance with the egalitarian and progressive trend of our Industrial jurisprudence, which strives to treat the capital and labour as co-sharers and to break away from the tradition of labours subservience to capital. 14. Shri Pai referred us to the Factories Act, 63 of 1948 and submitted that Section 52 read with Section 2 (f) of that Act indicates that adult workers are not required to work on Sundays except under certain conditions. It was argued that when Sundays as rest days are considered of importance, the law in terms so provides. In the present case, according to the submission, no importance is intended to be attached to Sundays as weekly days of rest. A change from Sundays to some other week days as days of rest should be considered as a matter of little or of no importance for the workmen. We are unable to agree with this submission. In our opinion, the Factories Act fortifies our view by suggesting that it is not immaterial or unimportant whether workmen are given a Sunday or some other week days as a weekly rest day. Though reference was also made by Shri Pai to the Mines Act, 35 of 1952, in our opinion, each statutory provision has to be construed on its own language though the general scheme of legislation on a given subject may, if necessary, be kept in view, if it throws helpful light on the construction to be placed on an ambiguous provision. No such consideration arises in the present case. 15. In our opinion, in order to effectively achieve the object underlying Section 9-A, it would be more appropriate to place on the Fourth Schedule and with Section 9-A a construction liberal enough to include change of weekly rest days from Sunday to some other week day. The appellant having thus effected a change in the weekly days of rest without complying with S. 9-A read with the Fourth Schedule this change must be held to be ineffective and the previous schedule of weekly days of rest must be held to be still operative. Reference was made at the bar to certain decisions but they are of little assistance in construing the statutory provisions with which we are concerned and which, as already observed, have to be construed on their own language and scheme. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to refer to those decisions. 16. The result then is that the appellants contention that the workmen concerned had resorted to illegal strike on September 22 and 29, 1963 must be rejected. On this view the respondents contention that the appellant had illegally declined to give work to the respondents on September 25 and 26, 1963 and that the appellant had declared lock-out on those two days which was illegal has also to be upheld. No doubts, mere refusal to give work does not by itself amount to lock-out but in the present case it cannot be disputed that when the employers closed the Sijua and Bhelatand collieries respectively on September 25 and 26, 1963 they knew that this change in the weekly days of rest was not acceptable to a considerable section of the workmen who had not come to work on Sunday, September 22, 1963.The closure of the place of work in the two aforesaid collieries on the two days in question was thus deliberate. Coal having been declared public utility service, as observed by the Regional Labour Commissioner in his order notice as contemplated by Section 22 of the Act was necessary. Such a notice having not been given, the lock-out was clearly illegal under section 24 of the Act. The High Court was in our opinion right in the orders made by it in the Writ Petitions.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]12. We now come to the main contention. Section 9-A which has already been reproduced, lays down that change in the conditions of service in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shall not have effect unless a notice is given to the workmen likely to be affected by such change. The relevant entries of the Fourth Schedule have already been reproduced. It appears to us that entries dealing with "hours of work and rest intervals" and "leave with wages and holidays" are wide enough to cover the case of illegal strikes and rest days. Indeed, entry no. 8 dealing with "withdrawal of customary concession or privilege or change in usage" is also wide enough to take within its fold the change of weekly holidays from Sunday to some other day of the week, because it seems to us to be a plausible argument to urge that fixation of Sundays as weekly rest days is founded on usage and/or is treated as a customary privilege and any change in such weekly holidays would fall within the expressions "change in usage" or "customary privilege"13. We are not unmindful of the force of the argument pressed on behalf of the appellant that if a holiday is changed from Sunday to some other week day it would not affect the material gain or financial benefit available to the workmen because the workmen would nonetheless get one day off with pay in a week.Whether the paid day of rest is a Sunday or some other week day would not doubt cause no financial loss to the workmen.But the financial benefit cannot be the sole criterion in considering this question. In this connection it must not be ignored that due to long usage and other factors Sunday as a holiday may for conceivable reasons have assumed importance for workmen. For certain classes of workmen Sunday as a weekly rest day may also have special significance. Workmen may, for example, also generally like to have weekly rest day on a Sunday when their School going children have a holiday so that the entire family may be able to take part in recreational or other social activities. This consideration has its own importance. If that be so, then, notice for effecting such a change would be within the contemplation of Section 9-A. Further the real object and purpose of enacting Section 9-A seems to be to afford an opportunity to the workmen to consider the effect of the proposed change and if necessary to present their point of view on the proposal. Such consultation further serves to stimulate a feeling of common joint interest of the management and workmen in the industrial progress and increased productivity. This approach on the part of the industrial employer would reflect his harmonious and sympathetic co-operation in improving the status and dignity of the Industrial employee in accordance with the egalitarian and progressive trend of our Industrial jurisprudence, which strives to treat the capital and labour as co-sharers and to break away from the tradition of labours subservience to capital15. In our opinion, in order to effectively achieve the object underlying Section 9-A, it would be more appropriate to place on the Fourth Schedule and with Section 9-A a construction liberal enough to include change of weekly rest days from Sunday to some other week day. The appellant having thus effected a change in the weekly days of rest without complying with S. 9-A read with the Fourth Schedule this change must be held to be ineffective and the previous schedule of weekly days of rest must be held to be still operative. Reference was made at the bar to certain decisions but they are of little assistance in construing the statutory provisions with which we are concerned and which, as already observed, have to be construed on their own language and scheme. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to refer to those decisions16. The result then is that the appellants contention that the workmen concerned had resorted to illegal strike on September 22 and 29, 1963 must be rejected. On this view the respondents contention that the appellant had illegally declined to give work to the respondents on September 25 and 26, 1963 and that the appellant had declared lock-out on those two days which was illegal has also to be upheld. No doubts, mere refusal to give work does not by itself amount to lock-out but in the present case it cannot be disputed that when the employers closed the Sijua and Bhelatand collieries respectively on September 25 and 26, 1963 they knew that this change in the weekly days of rest was not acceptable to a considerable section of the workmen who had not come to work on Sunday, September 22, 1963.The closure of the place of work in the two aforesaid collieries on the two days in question was thus deliberate. Coal having been declared public utility service, as observed by the Regional Labour Commissioner in his order notice as contemplated by Section 22 of the Act was necessary. Such a notice having not been given, the lock-out was clearly illegal under section 24 of the Act. The High Court was in our opinion right in the orders made by it in the Writ Petitions.