- (1.)The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, on 21st April, 1961, gave a notice of change desiring privilege, casual and sick leave with wages for the workers employed in the textile industry. The privilege leave asked for was with pay and allowances at the rate of one month for every month of service with a right to accumulate the same for three months. The sick leave asked for was at the rate of one month for each year of service subject to a maximum period of twelve months during the whole service. The casual leave asked for was 15 days with full pay and allowances in a calendar year. In addition, pay in lieu of privilege leave was also asked for under certain circumstances. As the mills did not agree and as conciliation proceedings failed, the reference, being Reference (IC) No. 103 of 1961, came to be made. In the said Reference the Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association objected to the demand, amongst others, on certain preliminary legal grounds. Those objections were rejected by an Award of this Court, dated 19th December, 1962. The Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association there upon filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court which was decided against them. They went in appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of India. As the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the matter came up for hearing before a Full Bench consisting of two of us. A large number of contentions were raised by the Textile Labour Association in the said reference in support of the demand. These were replied to by the Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association. The contentions were considered at some length by us. An award was made by us on 21st August 1967, which is published in Gujarat Government Gazette. Part I-L, dated 28th December 1967, pp. 4244-74. The leave that was being granted to the operatives at the time was (1) privilege leave as per the provisions of the Indian Factories Act, 1984; (2) casual leave, nil; (3) sick leave, as per the Employees' State Insurance Act. The demand for higher leave was sought leave to be justified on (1) grant of such higher leave to technical and clerical staff; (2) provision at least for one month's privilege leave and 10 days' casual leave with or without pay in the standing orders settled in 1939 and recognition thereby of the necessity of such leave and (3) the necessity of such leave as a break in a long period of physical and mental strain and to provide for rest, change and recuperation and to enable them to go to their native place, to attend to their household duties and to fulfill social and moral obligations towards their families.
(2.)Reliance was also placed on the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act and other Acts and the award of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra in the year 1963 in Reference (IC) No. 130 of 1961 (reported in 1964 ICR 124 as subsequently modified granting 5 days' casual leave and a few days extra privilege leave in addition to that provided for in the Indian Factories Act, 1948, and number of awards and practices prevailing where a few days' casual leave was granted and privilege leave higher than that provided under the Indian Factories Act was granted.
(3.)The demand was vehemently opposed by the Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association of the grounds that (1) the existing leave privileges were adequate; (2) compared favourably with those in vogue in various countries; (3) that additional leave provision would affect production; (4) the provision in the standing orders had no bearing on the question on the paid leave but were only introduced to maintain continuity of service; (5) the clerical, supervisory and technical staff were always in receipt of higher leave and the same was, therefore, not material and (6) the incapacity of the industry to bear the financial burden that would be imposed as a result of the enlargement of leave benefits.
;