Shinghal, J. - (1.) These two are companion appeals by special leave. They have been heard together at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties, and will be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) Appeal No. 1951 of 1975 is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, dated September 24, 1975 in the dispute between the Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Barods, and its workmen, while appeal No. 631 of 1976 arises out of the Tribunal's award in the dispute between Jyoti Limited, Baroda, and its workmen. Speaking broadly, the dispute in both cases related to the workman's demand for 10 days sick leave, with retrospective effect, and its accumulation over a period of three years i.e. up to 50 days. The workmen particularly felt aggrieved because by virtue of the first proviso to Section 49 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act, they were not entitled to the sickness benefit for the first two days of sickness except in the case of a spell of sickness following, at an interval of not more than 15 days, the spell of sickness for which sickness benefit was last paid. It was also a grievance that the benefit under the scheme of the Act was much less than the normal earnings of an employee and was not beneficial to the workmen.
(3.) The demand was resisted by the Companies in both cases. In the case of the Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. it was contended that the Act provided more than adequate sickness benefits, and any additional benefit would place unproductive financial burden on the industry and would have an all round adverse effect on other industries. It was also urged that Section 99 of the Act gave wide powers to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to enhance the benefit and it was therefore the proper authority to examine the demand. The Company also contended that there was no practice of giving any such sick leave in the industries in Baroda or in the State of Gujarat. In the case of Jyoti Ltd. an objection was taken that the reference was incompetent and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it. It was also pointed out that the benefit of sick leave of 7 days per year was initially given to the workmen under an award dated August 29, 1958 which contained a specific direction that it would be automatically discontinued when the benefits of the Employee's State Insurance Scheme would become available to the workmen, and also that the reasonableness of the demand could not be examined by the Tribunal. An objection was also taken that the workmen had benefited a lot under the entire scheme of the Act and it would not be reasonable and proper to confer any additional benefit as the demands would place a heavy financial burden on the Company which it could not bear. The demand,according to the Company, would create an absurd position inasmuch as a worker would receive more wages by remaining absent than on duty. The Company also pleaded that the demand for sickness leave could not be granted retrospectively or allowed to accumulate.;