Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between Assam Match Company Limited (appellant employer) and Bijoy Lal Sen and others (respondent workmen) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant had published a list of holidays at the beginning of 1966, declaring Friday, 11 November 1966 as the holiday for Kali Puja. The workmen were represented by two unions: Amco Employees Association and Amco Sramik Sangha, the latter representing the majority. On 5 November 1966, the appellant notified closure for Kali Puja on 11 November. On 10 November 1966, the General Secretary of the majority union wrote to the Factory Manager requesting the holiday be shifted to Saturday, 12 November 1966, stating that if the change was not accepted, many workmen would not attend on Saturday, causing production loss. The appellant immediately notified change of holiday to 12 November, with factory open on 11 November. The minority union protested the same day, but the appellant did not accede. Most workmen of the minority union did not attend work on 11 November and were not paid wages. Nearly a year later, on 30 December 1967, 83 workmen filed an application under Section 33-A before the Labour Court, Gauhati, alleging that during pendency of an industrial dispute, the employer had altered a condition of service by changing the holiday date without following Section 33 and Section 9-A. They contended that one day holiday for Kali Puja had become a condition of service and the Standing Orders did not permit such change. The Labour Court accepted that the majority union had requested the change but held that alteration of the date amounted to a change in condition of service requiring Section 9-A procedure; as it was not followed, there was violation of Section 33 read with Section 9-A, and granted relief. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court held that alteration of the date regarding the holiday for Kali Puja from 11th to 12th November 1966 could not be considered an alteration in conditions of service. The workmen were entitled to a holiday for Kali Puja, but the particular date was a matter for the management to decide in consultation with the workmen. If a large body of workmen requested change and the management changed the date, there was no alteration in conditions of service; the workmen were not deprived of a holiday and actually got it on 12 November 1966. Even assuming the alteration amounted to a condition of service, there was no contravention of Section 9-A when the majority of workmen themselves requested the alteration; the employer was within its rights under Section 33(2). The evidence showed that workmen actually celebrated Kali Puja on 12 November. Therefore, the application under Section 33-A was misconceived. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Labour Court's award, and dismissed the workmen's application.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Change in Conditions of Service - Alteration of Holiday Date - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 9A, 33, 33(2)(a), Fourth Schedule - The alteration of the date for Kali Puja holiday from 11th to 12th November 1966 at the request of the majority union did not amount to an alteration in conditions of service. The workmen were entitled to a holiday for Kali Puja, but the particular date was a matter for the management to decide in consultation with the workmen. Held that when a large body of workmen requested the change because the festival was not observed on the original date, and the management changed the date, there was no alteration in conditions of service; the workmen were not deprived of a holiday and actually got it on 12th November 1966. (Paras 120D-121E) B) Industrial Disputes - Change in Conditions of Service - Compliance with Section 9A When Majority Requests Change - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 9A, 33(2), 33-A - Even assuming alteration of date of holiday amounted to a condition of service, there was no contravention of Section 9A when the majority of workmen themselves requested the alteration; the employer was within rights under Section 33(2). The evidence showed workmen actually celebrated Kali Puja on 12th November. Held that the application under Section 33-A was misconceived. (Paras 121E)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant contravened Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by changing the holiday for Kali Puja from 11th November to 12th November 1966 at the request of the majority of workmen.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Labour Court's award, and held that the alteration of the holiday date did not amount to a change in conditions of service; even if it did, there was no contravention of Section 9-A because the majority of workmen requested the change. The application under Section 33-A was misconceived. The workmen were not entitled to wages for 11 November 1966.
Law Points
- Alteration of holiday date not change in conditions of service
- management decides date of holiday in consultation with workmen
- change at request of majority workmen does not violate Section 9A
- employer within rights under Section 33(2)
- application under Section 33A misconceived when majority requested change
- workmen not deprived of holiday
