Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Mahomad Rai Akbarali Khan v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., 1953 (II) LLJ 845, 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.

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. Industrial Tribunal 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 had rejected the employees' demand for house-rent allowance but had recommended to the concern to undertake building operations. The Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this conclusion and took a more practical and a wise course by readjusting the dearness allowance so as to grant adequate relief to the employees' in that behalf. It would thus be seen that even where the employer had started its factory at a small village like Sevalia the Appellate Tribunal did not accept the employees demand for housing accommodation and did not also think it proper to ask the employer to pay to its employees any separate special house-rent allowance.

The problem 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 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 general problem of housing and Chap. 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 Government. But it is obvious that his problem cannot at present be tackled in isolation by industrial tribunals in dealing with housing demands made by employees' individual cases. In the present economic conditions of our industries it would be inexpedient to impose this additional 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.