BAREILLY HOLDINGS LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, U. P. dated November 28, 1969. On September 7, 1968 the Government of U. P. Referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 4 (k) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 28 of 1947:

(2.) The respondent-workmen contended that the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the E.S.I. Act) was adopted by the appellant, M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd., in 1957, that the workmen used to enjoy, prior to 1957, 15 day's sick leave with full wages every year in accordance with the terms of an award given by the State Tribunal, Allahabad, in Adjudication Case No. 33 of 1952, that under that award, the workmen were entitled to sick leave on full wages as a condition of their service, that they also became entitled to sickness benefit under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme and that the appellant was not justified in reducing the wages to the extent of a half day's wages in respect of employees availing of sick leave.

(3.) The appellant contested the demand of the workmen on the grounds, inter alia, that its action in deducting half wages corresponding to the sickness benefit to which the workmen were entitled under the Act in regard to the sick leave was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 97 of the employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950, that if any individual employee chose not to avail of the benefit due to him from the E.S.I. Corporation on account of his sickness, a deduction of half the wages corresponding to the sickness benefit could be made by the employer and that the sickness benefit provided under the E.S.I. Act and the Scheme was in substitution of the benefits provided by the employer and not in addition thereto. The appellant raised an objection to the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the dispute referred by the State Government to the Tribunal was not an industrial dispute and contended further that the subject-matter of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employee's State Insurance Court set up under Section 74 of the E.S.I. Act, as a result of which the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.