KAILAS RUBBER CO Vs. INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Public Limited Company owning and managing an estate. The petitioner challenges Ext. P5 order of the first respondent directing the petitioner to pay wages for the national and festival holidays to the workers. These orders have been passed under S.3 and 5 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Festival Holidays Act'). According to S.3 of the Festival Holidays Act every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year a holiday of one whole day on the 26th January, 15th August, 1st May and 2nd October and 9 other holidays as the first respondent may specify in respect of any industrial establishment in consultation with the employer and the employees. According to S.5 of the Festival Holidays Act, every employee shall be paid wages for each of these holidays mentioned in S.3. There are two Provisos to S.5. According to the Ist Proviso, if such holiday falls during the period of a lay off, the employee shall be paid fifty per cent of the total of the basic wages and dearness allowance. According to IInd Proviso, no wages shall be paid to the employee for any of the holidays if such holiday falls during the period of a strike which is illegal under S.24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) According to the petitioner, the IInd Proviso referred to above, is applicable to the case in hand. The employees represented by the second respondent union were on strike between 7.12.1994 and 2.4.1995. The above strike was illegal under S.24 of the Act because of the pendency of an industrial dispute referred for adjudication before the Labour Court as per Exts. P1 and P2. Under S.24 of the Act a strike is illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of S.22 or 23 of the Act. S.23 of the Act prohibits strike under the following circumstances:

(3.) Sri. Siri Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Chemicals & Fibres of India v. D. G. Bhoir ( AIR 1975 SC 1660 ) in order to drive home his point that the strike resorted to by the second respondent union is illegal under S.23(b) of the Act. There is an elaborate discussion in the above judgment regarding the right of the workers to strike work and the embargo contained in S.23 of the Act.