Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It appears that both the tribunals assumed that the scheme in question had been adopted with the consent of the appellant and as such the appellant was bound by it. This assumption is clearly unjustified. No partner of the appellant was a member of the Committee and Mr. Chandra' the appellant's Labour Adviser was not its member in 1950 but became one in 1952. Mr. Chandra is a Labour Adviser of other companies as well and so it would be difficult to accept the argument that even after he became a member in 1952 he could represent the appellant in the legal sense so as to bind it by his consent; but apart from this aspect of the matter, even Mr. Chandra was not a member in 1950 when the scheme was adopted. It is true that some representatives of industrial employers were nominated by the State Government as members of the Committee ; but that would not justify the assumption that the scheme adopted by the Committee and sanctioned by the Government is binding on the appellant. It is significant that even the scheme lays down that providing housing accommodation to the lowest paid workers is mainly the responsibility of the employers and that the State Government could only help the employers by giving them aid in the . form of loan and in the matter of acquisition of land. The scheme is thus merely recommendatory and the use of the word " mainly " shows that it is vague and cannot be, and was not expected to be, enforced as it stands. It is clear that tribunals cannot call upon the Government to advance a loan to the employers whenever they pass awards calling upon the employers to start the construction of quarters for their employees; so that if Government takes time to sanction the required loan, or, owing to its own difficulties, it is unable to sanction it, the employer would be exposed to the risk of the penalties arising out of his failure to comply with the award; and that only serves to emphasise that the problem - must be tackled by the employers and the State in co-operation with each other and cannot at present at least be treated as a subject-matter of an award. We are, therefore, satisfied that the scheme in question which is the sole basis for the award cannot have the effect of introducing a term of employment between the appellant and its workmen in regard to housing facilities. We may incidentally point out that if the present award is upheld it would give rise to similar demands from employees in other allied or similar industries in Bihar; and if such demands are upheld it would inevitably impose a very large burden on the employers and that may materially affect the industrial progress of the State of Bihar. It is necessary to emphasise that, in considering the claims of workmen sympathetically on the ground of social and economic justice, industrial adjudication has to bear in mind the interests of national economy and progress which are relevant and material. We must, therefore, hold that the award under appeal cannot be sustained on the basis of the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government. It has, however, been urged before us on behalf of the respondent that, apart from the scheme, the industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to make an award calling upon the appellant to provide housing accommodation for its employees. The argument is that, unlike commercial arbitration, industrial arbitration may, and often does, involve the making of a new contract or the imposition of new obligations on the employer in the interests of social justice; and having regard to the fact that the employees are very badly in need of housing accommodation it was open to the tribunal in the present case to have directed the appellant to make a. beginning in that direction by providing housing accommodation to some of its employees. In support of this argument the respondent has relied upon the oft-quoted observation of Ludwig Teller that "

In Mahomad Rai Akbarali Khan v. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1), the Labour Appellate Tribunal has considered this problem. It was urged by the employees before the appellate tribunal that the employers should either provide quarters or pay house rent allowance, whereas the company contended that it was not the function of the management to provide accommodation for its employees. The appellate tribunal, however, took the view that the employers' contention should be accepted subject to considerable qualifications in certain cases; and it proceeded to consider the special features of the problem presented by the employers' factory at Sevalia. Sevalia was a village until the employer went there to start its factory which needed the services of a large contingent of workers.

" When an industrial concern like this ", observed the appellate tribunal, " bursts upon a rural area there is a very considerable impact on its economy. The inhabitants nearby join the factory as well as those living further away; there is also an influx of persons from outside; in short it means that accommodation becomes scarce, and expensive; and if a workman has to go further afield for his accommodation he is put to considerable physical fatigue and inconvenience. In such circumstances it has not been the policy of the tribunals to ignore a claim for house rent allowance ". " After making these observations, the appellate tribunal proceeded to readjust the dearness allowance payable to the employees after taking into account the increased house rent which they had to pay for their housing accommodation in Sevalia ; and having thus readjusted the dearness allowance the appellate, tribunal held that no separate order as to house rent allowance was necessary. It appears that in that case the industrial tribunal had taken the view that the problem was not likely to be solved by granting house rent allowance to the employees and that the only practical course, therefore, was that the company should either help the workers in building their houses or that the company itself should construct quarters. That is why it bad rejected the (1) [1953] L.A.C. 677.

The problem of housing industrial labour has been the subject-matter of some legislative enactments. As regards the workers employed in Plantations, - the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 ( 69 of 1951), provides that it shall be the duty of every employer to construct and maintain for every worker and his family residing in the plantation necessary housing accommodation subject to the other provisions of the Act. Housing Boards have also been established in different States to tackle the larger problem of housing in general. The Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Bom. 69 of 1948), the Mysore Labour Housing Act, 1949 (Mys. 28 of 1949), the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh 43 of 1950), the Hyderabad Labour Housing Act, 1952 (Hyd. 36 of 1952), the Saurashtra Housing Act, 1954 (Saurashtra 32 of 1954) and the U. P. Industrial Housing Act, 1955 (U. P. 32 of 1955), are attempts made by the respective States 'to meet their responsibility in the matter of providing housing accommodation to its citizens in general and to industrial labour in particular. This problem appears to have been considered by the Planning Commission in its report on the Second Five Year Plan. Chapter 26 of the report deals with the genera. problem of housing and ch. 27 deals With labour policy and programmes. The discussion of the problem in these two chapters shows that housing shortage can be conquered only by sustained and well planned efforts made by the States and the industry together. It is a very big problem and involves the expenditure of a huge amount. Efforts are being made by the Central Government to invite the co-operation of industrial employers to tackle this problem with the progressively increasing financial and other assistance offered by the State Governments. But it is obvious that this problem cannot at present be tackled in isolation by industrial tribunals in dealing with housing demands made by employees in individual cases. In the present economic condition of our industries it would be inexpedient to impose this addi- tional burden on the employers. Such an imposition may retard the progress of our industrial development and production and thereby prejudicially affect the national economy. Besides such an imposition on the employers would ultimately be passed by them to the consumers and that may result in an increase in prices which is not desirable from a national point of view. It is true that the-concept of social justice is not static and may expand with the growth and prosperity of our industries and a rise in our production and national income; but so far as' the present state of our national economy, and the general financial condition of our industry are concerned it would be undesirable to think of introducing such an obligation on the employers today. That is why we think the industrial tribunals have very wisely refused to entertain pleas for housing accommodation made by workmen from time to time against their employers.