Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of the proceedings taken at the instance of the appellant, the Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Kirkee, Poona, under S. 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereafter called the Act). It appears that certain disputes pending between the appellant and the respondents, its workmen, were referred to the industrial tribunal for its adjudication by the Government of Maharashtra. The disputes in question related to seven demands made by the respondents:two of these were in regard to privilege leave and allowances. The tribunal which tried the dispute made its award in two parts. Part 1 of the award which dealt with the demand of privilege leave and different kinds of allowances was made on June 30, 1958, and published on July 17, 1958. On August 2, 1958, the appellant applied to the State Government for reference of certain points to the tribunal for its clarification under S. 36A. Accordingly an order of reference was made in respect of the two items of privilege leave and allowances. The tribunal has made the necessary clarification in regard to its direction as to privilege leave. It has, however, held that the direction made by it for the payment to the workmen under Para. 14 its award needed no clarification. It held that in substance the appellant was seeking for a modification of the said direction and that could not be done in the clarification proceedings contemplated by S. 36A. The clarification award was thus made by the tribunal and submitted to the Government. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
(2.) It would be convenient at his stage to indicate briefly the nature of the clarification claimed by the appellant before the tribunal. In regard to the claim for privilege leave the original award by Para. 10 had directed as follows. "All the workmen, both daily and monthly rated, get privilege leave according to the provisions of the Factories Act. The leave usually comes to 14 or 15 days in a year ...... I consider a privilege leave of 15 days a year to both the sections of the workmen in the Kirloskar Oil Engines as quite adequate. At present this leave is allowed to be accumulated for two years. Here I am of the opinion that the accumulation should be up to 45 days I therefore, direct that all the workmen of the Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Poona, shall be granted 15 days privilege leave (including privilege leave under the Factories Act) which will be allowed to be accumulated up to 45 days." The appellant apprehended that the direction of the award may justify a claim by every worker whose name is on the muster roll to 15 days privilege leave irrespective of his actual, attendance during the year. In other words, the appellant argued before the tribunal in the present proceedings that the words used by the original award were wide enough to justify a claim for 15 days privilege leave even where the workmen was absent from work, for say 360 days in a year provided his name appeared on the muster roll of the appellant. The tribunal appreciated the force of this argument. It is common ground that under S. 79 of the Factories Act, 1948, it is only where a worker has worked for a period of 240 days or more in a factory during a calendar year that he becomes entitled during the subsequent calendar year to leave with wages for a number of days calculated at the rate of one day for every twenty days of work performed by an adult worker in the previous calendar year, or at the rate of one day for every fifteen days work performed by a child. The tribunal observed that it was not the intention of the award to depart from the basic principle prescribed by S. 70; and so it made the necessary clarification by adding that in order to entitle him to the privilege as directed by the award every workmen must up in 240 days or more of actual working during the previous calendar year. Thus, in regard to the provision made by the award as to privilege leave the clarification claimed by the appellant was made.
(3.) In regard to the second point on which clarification was sought the relevant direction in the award reads thus: "At present if a workmen works on a weekly off or on a holiday, he gets a substituted holiday under the Factories Act but no additional payment. In my opinion a workmen makes plans well in advance about spending his holidays. He spends his time in the company of his colleagues and refreshes himself. If he gets a substituted holiday, he is deprived of his enjoyment. He should, therefore, be compensated in money as well as by a day off. I, therefore, direct that if a workmen has to work on a weekly off or on a holiday (paid or unpaid) he should be paid 11/2 times his wages and dearness allowance over and above a substituted holiday." The appellant urged before the tribunal that this direction needed to be clarified because as it stood it was likely to impose on the appellant very heavy financial burden. The tribunal held that the direction itself was very clear and that under the guise of clarification the appellant was seeking its modification. So the tribunal rejected the appellant's claim for any clarification in that behalf.;