TMI Blog1967 (8) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublished beyond the period fixed in the Act. The notification accompanying the gazette publication stated that Government had received the award on 14th October, 1966. It was argued by Mr. Gokbale that in terms of s. 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the award bad to be published within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government . According to learned counsel, the award having reached Government on 14th October, 1966 it should have been published at the latest on 12th November, 1966 as s. 17 of the Act was mandatory. Our attention was also drawn to sub-s. (2) of s. 17 according to which it is only the award published under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 that is final and cannot be called in question by any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that Government might be directed not to publish the award sent to it by the Industrial Tribunal. The High Court held that s. 17 was mandatory and it was not open to Government to withhold publication. The contention on behalf of the appellants was that s. 17 providing for the publication of the award was directory and not mandatory. Mr. Gokhale relied on the passage at page 452 of the judgment reading: It is clear therefore, reading s. 17 and s. 17-A together, that the intention behind s. 17(1) is that a duty is cast on Government to publish the award within thirty days of its receipt and the provision for its publication is mandatory and not merely directory . Ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision mandatory. It was observed by Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) speaking for the majority of the Court that: For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it One way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstances, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non- compliance with the provisions, the fact that the noncompliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all, whether the object of the legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.R. 448.) merely shows that it was not open to Government to withhold publication but this Court never meant to lay down that the period of time fixed for publication was mandatory. Coming to the merits of the case, Mr. Gokhale argued that the Tribunal. had gone wrong in revising the wage scales as it had done. The head of dispute referred to the Tribunal was revision of wages as per award of the Madras Labour Tribunal in 38 of 1960. The arguments advanced in this case were the same as in the Bangalore case (just now disposed of) and the Tribunal after noting the phenomenal progress of the Company and the enormous profits it was making, came to the conclusion that there was no reason why there should be any disparity in wages between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifference that the maximum fixed was 20 months' wages after 20 years service. In our view, there is no reason why the scheme for gratuity should not be the same in the Ernakulam branch as in the Bangalore branch in case of termination of service for misconduct and the qualifying period should be 15 years' service. Again, on principles already formulated, we hold that leave facilities at Ernakulam should be the same as those prevailing at Madras. Next comes the dispute with regard to the working hours. The working hours of the employees of Trivandrum and Ernakulam as prevalent were from 9 a. m. to 1. p. m. and from 2 p. m. to 5-30 p. m. on week days and from 9 a. m. to 1 p. m. on Saturdays. At Madras the Company's workers work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider that all the machines attended to, whether new or old, whether under the service contract or not, will be counted for the sake of workload . No satisfactory reason has been adduced as to why we should disturb the award. The last head of dispute was with regard to moving staff allowance . The union demanded that workmen who were deputed on tour on Company's work should be given a day off if they had to travel two nights consecutively. Demand was also made that, travelling staff should be paid overtime for the work done on holidays while on tour at double the normal wages for the day. The Management disputed this claim on the ground that it was not possible to calculate the number of hours worked by the employee at the out-stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
