HIND LAMPS LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 9th Aug. 1973, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner Company and the representative of the workmen and was registered under Section 4 -F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') and Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Before the Conciliation Officer, one of the items of the settlement was 'good attendance leave'. The object of this particular settlement was to prevent heavy absenteeism. Certain incentives were given to the workmen. Under the scheme, allowance was made for 52 weekly holidays, 14 days for full paid leave, 9 days for causal leave and 11 days for festival holidays. It was provided that a workman, who had put in a minimum attendance of 268 days in the previous calendar year was entitled to 2 days leave during the subsequent calendar year, the workman who had put in a minimum attendance of 270 days in the previous calendar year was entitled to 4 days leave during the subsequent calendar year and workman who had put in 275 days during the previous calendar year was entitled to 6 days leave during the subsequent calendar year. Those workmen, who failed to attend to their duties for the minimum days referred to above, were not entitled to any good attendance leave. The settlement became effective from 1st May, 1973 and was to remain in force for three years and/or for such later period till it was terminated by a notice of termination from either side.

(2.) SECTION 2(n) of the U.P. Act defines 'Lay - off' (with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions) to mean:

(3.) IN the Central Act, Chapter V -A was inserted by Act No. 43 of 1953. Section 25J falls in that Chapter. Sub -section (1) of Section 25J has provisions analogous to those contained in Sub -section (1) of Section 6 -R of the U.P. Act. By Section 17 of Act No. 36 of 1964, the proviso to Section 25J was substituted with effect from 19th Dec. 1964 to the following effects: -