Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. The defence of the company is not consistent. In one breath, the company contends that a badli or temporary worker is not entitled to claim benefit of Clause 4 of the agreement, unless he has put in continuous three months' service before each festival holiday for which the badli or temporary worker claims payment for the festival holiday. This was the defence taken before the Payment of Wages Authority in Writ Applications Nos. 7197 and 7198 of 1956. The learned authority overruled this contention of the company and directed the company to pay wages for the festival holidays [vide the order dated 31 March 1959 of the authority (Ex. 11 in I.D.A. Application No. 970 of 1960)]

52. In the light of these observations, the conduct of the parties subsequent to 24 October 1951 will have to be interpreted. There was the necessity to avoid unrest of the temporary or badli workers caused on account of the discrimination by the company in respect of permanent and temporary workers. With this purpose in view the company must have entered into the agreement dated 24 October 1951. Now the company cannot be permitted to say that there was no compelling necessity in respect of temporary or badli workers who were not the members of the union (red flag) and therefore the agreement does not cover them. If this contention is allowed to prevail, there will be continuation of discrimination, which was condemned by the learned industrial tribunal.

54. V. Chockalingam, applicant in Application (I.D.A.) No. 1228 of 1962 was cross-examined by the learned counsel of the company. His affidavit is filed at Ex. 56 on 19 August 1965. He has stated in his affidavit that there was a contract between himself and the company that he should be given paid festival holidays and that the company gave him three paid holidays in 1951. Deposition of V. Chockalingam was recorded at Ex. 83. In his examination he has stated about the agreement dated 24 October 1951 between the company and union. He has also stated that the company has given effect to this agreement in case of some badli and some temporary workers. He has spoken of the applications filed before the Payment of Wages Authority and the practice started by the company to give paid festival holidays to all badli and temporary workers after the disposal of the applications by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act since 1962. In cross-examination, he has admitted that there was a strike in 1952, but he has denied that he had joined the strike.

57. Sri Bhadke for the company has argued that the company had not issued any notice or published any notice on the notice-board by virtue of which the temporary or badli workers who were not the members of the red flag union were entitled to get the benefits as per the agreement dated 24 October 1951. There is no substance in this argument. The fact remains that after the Payment of Wages Authority overruled the contention by its judgment, the company has stated giving paid festival holidays to temporary or badli workers and there is no evidence that the company had issued any such notice intimating to the badli or temporary workers that they are entitled get paid festival holidays subject to the condition put in this agreement dated 24 October 1951.