BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case raises fur decision an interesting question about the scope of Sections 50 and 51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), in the context of what is well known as the Desai Tribunal Award made in the industrial dispute between certain banking companies and their workmen. The Desai Award modified an earlier award known as the Sastri Award. Thiru K. N. Mudaliar J. , before whom the criminal revision case came for disposal, considered that this case involved "a complicated question of law, which has the character of substantial public importance. " That is how the criminal revision case has come before a Bench for disposal.

(2.) THE facts relating to the case are briefly as follows : On the complaint of the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Erode, Sri Bandari, Deputy General Manager, Establishment Department, Administrative Office of the Canara Bank Ltd. Bangalore, was prosecuted before the S. D. M. Erode and convicted under Section 45 (1) read with Section 25 (2) of the Act, and sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 20, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. The complainant alleged that one Sri Moolanathan an employee of the bank at Erode was on sick leave for two days; the management paid him only half his wages for the two days in question. It was the contention of the complainant that under Section 25 (2) of the Act, the employee was entitled to sick leave with full wages for a period not exceeding 12 days during one year of service. When the authorities of the Labour department directed the bank to pay full wages to the above said employee, they refused to comply. This non-compliance was treated as a contravention attracting the penalty under Section 45 of the Act.

(3.) THE bank, before the lower court, relied on the provisions of the Desai Award, which granted the employees of banks the benefit of sick leave up to 30 days during one year of service, but only on half wages per day. In the view of the bank this provision for the sick leave in the Desai Award should be taken along with other leave benefits, which that award has granted to banking employees and if so taken, the benefits under the Award are more advantageous from the point of view of the employees, than similar benefits which the Act had granted to the employees before the Desai Award. The bank contended that under Section 50 of the Act, the workers are entitled to elect the more favourable of the terms as to leave as between the Desai Award and the Act. As against this contention, the complainant in the lower court referred to a communication from the Commissioner of Labour to the bank on 8. 3. 1966, stating that for the purpose of casual and sick leave the Act should apply and not the Desai Award. It was urged that under Section 51 of the Act, the decision of the Commissioner thus communicated will be binding on the employer.