M/s. L. H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1962. .1962 August 3. liD. , L. '16. Su1ar 'F&el1rie.s ch Oii 'Jlillo(l') Lli . Th1ir W 01kmen Appeal by special leave from the Award dated May 1, 1961, of the Industrial Tribunal (Ill), U.P. at Allahabad in Reference No. 69 of 1959. G. S. Pathak, J. B. Darlachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. · . B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondents. 1962, August 3.-The Judgment of the court was delivered by J(udh<lkar J. MuDHOLKAR, J.-The only point for consideration in this ·appeal by special leave from an award of the Industrial Tribunal at Allahabad is whether the "crushing season" of 1958:59 must be deemed to have ended on March J.2, 1959 when the ·r actual crushing of sugar cane stopped or on March 16, 1959 when all ancillary operations in the factory oame to an end and the entire machinery was at a stand-still.

According to the appellants the "crusli' ing season" came to an end on the latter date while according to the respondents who are the employees of the factory it came to an end on the former date. The importance of determining the date on whic~e season terminated arises out of the admitteil'position that only those seasonal workers who are borne on the muster roll of the factory on the day next to the date on which the crushing season ended would be entitled to three days' clos-. ure holidays. It is the case of the respondents that the appellants employ about l.600seasonal workers and about 650 permanent workers. ·It is common ground that the crushing process terminated on March 12, 1959, and on that day about 1,000 of the l,600·seasonal workers left for their homes· by the evening after receiving all their dues. The remai· ning seasonal workers continued to work in the :;.. factory till Maroh 16, 1959, and, therefore, under 3 S.C.R. 573. a term of an award of the.

Industrial Tribunal in reference No. 33 of 53 and d11.ted April 15, 1953, they are entitled to three days' closure . holidays. The case of the appellants, however, is that the crushing season must be regarded as having ended on March 16, 1959 which was the last day on which the factory was worked and that only those seasonal workers who were borne on the muster roll of the factory on March 17, 1959 would be entitled .to three days' closure holidays. The 600 seasonal workers who worked till the evening of March 16, 1959, would therefore, according to them not be entitled to dosure holidays. During arguments Mr. Pathak also suggested that the fact that between March 12 and March 16,1959, 600 seasonal workers continued to work in the factory has not been established in this case. Taking up the last point it is sufficient to point out that the evidence of W. W. 1, B. S. Chauhan, who is a member of the executive of the . U. P. Trade Union Congress, Kanpur, shows that the seasonal workers other than those . who left on the evening of March 12, 1959, were borne on the muster roll of the appellants on March 13, 1959.

His evidence on the point has not been challenged in the cross-examination. Nor have the appellants examined any witness for the purpose of showing how many seasonal . workers were borne on the muster roll on March 13, 1959 .. The only. witness examined by them, Shrl K. K. Sinha, who is working as Manufacturing Chemist, has no knowledge about the matter because, as admitted by him in · his cross·examination, he was not working in the mills in the 1958-59 crushing season. Since the total number of seasonal workers was 1,600 and nearly a thousand had left on March 12, 1959 the number of those who continued to work till March 16, 19!)9 must be six hundred. ·We must, therefore, proceed on the basis tl~at the na~es of abol,lt 609 ' L.H. Sugar · Factories tlJ Oil M ilh {PJ Ltd. ... v. Their Wotkmen , · Mudholkar L H. Sugar . Fado1id.r &: Oil Mills (P) Ltd. rheir Workmen Mudho/kar J. .

SUPREJlE'COUR'l'.REPO.l,l.1.'S (1963] seasonal workers continued to be borne on !the muster roll of the appellants on March ·13, 1959. What has to be considered ·then is what was the date on whioh the crushing season of 1958-59 ended. It seems to us olear that the crushing season must be deemed to have ended on the <late on :which the crushing opera~ions in the factory came to an end and not.on ti).e date on which the manufacturing p:r;ocesses in the factory came. to an end. We must give to the expression .. orushing season" its ordinary meaning unless it is shown that in the industry it has acquired some other meaning. There was no evidence before .the Tribunal to the effect that ''crushing sea•on" meant the period during which the faotory was actually working an.d not merely the period during which the crushing opei:ations were being carried on. Clause (3~-of the Award of 1953 runs as follows:

"All. · permanent workers and such seasonal employees as are on the factory's roll on the day following the. close of the crushing season will be entitled _to the closure holid{l-ys.'' There is nothing in the Award to indicate that according to the Tribunal "crushing season" meant anything else than the period during which crushing operations · were carried on . Since, as already pointed out , the operations came to an end on March 12 , 1959 the crushing season must be held to have ended on that day. · Those seasonal workers who were borne on the muster roll on March 13, 1959 would be entitled to three days' closure holidays. Agreeing with the Tribunl. we, therefore, uphold the Award and dismiss the appeal with oosts. Appeal dJsm-!ssed.