# ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. BARODA & OTHERS v. THE WORKMEN & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 80
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-07-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 1975
- **Bench:** V. Chandrachud, P. K. Goswami, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/alembic-glass-industries-ltd-baroda-others-v-the-workmen-others-6976
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948-S. 61-If debars gram
of
sick
leave-If the Act deals with all aspects of sickness.
The workmen's demand for grant of sick leave and its accumulation upto
a period was rejected by the employers on the ground that the Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948 provided more than adequate sickness benefits, and
that any additional benefits would place . a financial burden on the industry
and would adversely affect other industries in the region.
The Tribunal, to
C
which the dispute was referred, partly granted the workmen's demand.
D
E
F
G
H
On appeal to this Court it was contended that s. 61 of the Employees'
State Insurance Act debarred a person entitled to any of the benefits· under
that Act from receiving similar benefit under the provisions of any other Act
and as such the workmen were not entitled to the benefit of sick leave.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : (1) The Employees' State Insurance Act, does not deal with the
question of sick leave. The scheme of the benefits iidmissible under the Act
does not cover the workmen's demand for sick leave to the extent allowed
by the Tribunal. Section 61 is not applicable because the benefits granted
by the Tribunal are not similar to those admissible under the Act. [84 CJ
The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi v. Their Workmen [1964] 1 SCR 234
and 'Technological Institute of Textiles v. Its Workmen and others [1965] 2
L.L.J. 149 applied.
(2) Sickness benefit under the Act cannot· be said to be adequate, for, it
works out to about half' the average wage of a workman which benefit is
not admissible for the first two days of sickness except under the conditions
provided in the Act.
A workman is prevented from earning the normal daily
wages during the period of his illness and there is . no justificaltion for the
argument that the rate of benefit at about half his wage, under the Act,
should be considered s'ufficient so as to deny him the benefit of s·ick leave
on full emoluments for a period of 7 days when he is certified by a. competent
medical officer to be ill for that or a longer period. Sickness is a serious
misfortune to a. workman for it not only prevents him from earnillg his
normal wages, but is a drain on his meagre financial resources by way of
additional expenditure on food, hursing and visits to the medical cenl re etc.
[84 E-FJ
( 3) The Tribunal could not be said to have erred in restoring the benefit
which the workmen were receiving under an earlier award. The benefit . of
sick leave to the employees in the region was lost when the Act was made
applicable to the region from December 14, 1969. This _was obviously under
a mistaken impression. The Act does not deal with all -aspects of sickness
benefit and does not provide for the grant of leave on full emoluments during
the period of a workman's physical incapacity to earn his· normal wages because
of his sickness. [85 Jli.C]
·
( 4) There is no force in the argument that the Tribunal had granted
additional privilege leave for 7 days under the garb of sick leave because by
its very nature sick leave would be admissible only in the case of actual
sickness certified by a registered medical practitioner. [86 Bl
.(5) There is no evidence to show that the benefit had not been allowed
by other companies in the region. The Tribunal had examined the financiaf
-
)
-<
.... x
·-f-,
ALEMBIC GLASS v. THE WORKMEN (Shinghal, J.)
81
capacity of the companies and had
they were in good financial po&ition
~
-·~-....
••
I
given adequate reasons for holding that
and could bear the additional
burden.
[85 HJ
( 6) It has not been shown that the a wards are illegal or unjust, or would
adversely affect the economy or the industrial peace, or lead to imbalance in
the conditions of service in other industrial establishments.
[86 CJ
A

## Text

80
A
ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. BARODA & OTHERS.
B
v.
THE WORKMEN & OTHERS
July 30, 1976
[Y, V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948-S. 61-If debars gram
of
sick
leave-If the Act deals with all aspects of sickness.
The workmen's demand for grant of sick leave and its accumulation upto
a period was rejected by the employers on the ground that the Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948 provided more than adequate sickness benefits, and
that any additional benefits would place . a financial burden on the industry
and would adversely affect other industries in the region.
The Tribunal, to
C
which the dispute was referred, partly granted the workmen's demand.
D
E
F
G
H
On appeal to this Court it was contended that s. 61 of the Employees'
State Insurance Act debarred a person entitled to any of the benefits· under
that Act from receiving similar benefit under the provisions of any other Act
and as such the workmen were not entitled to the benefit of sick leave.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : (1) The Employees' State Insurance Act, does not deal with the
question of sick leave. The scheme of the benefits iidmissible under the Act
does not cover the workmen's demand for sick leave to the extent allowed
by the Tribunal. Section 61 is not applicable because the benefits granted
by the Tribunal are not similar to those admissible under the Act. [84 CJ
The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi v. Their Workmen [1964] 1 SCR 234
and 'Technological Institute of Textiles v. Its Workmen and others [1965] 2
L.L.J. 149 applied.
(2) Sickness benefit under the Act cannot· be said to be adequate, for, it
works out to about half' the average wage of a workman which benefit is
not admissible for the first two days of sickness except under the conditions
provided in the Act.
A workman is prevented from earning the normal daily
wages during the period of his illness and there is . no justificaltion for the
argument that the rate of benefit at about half his wage, under the Act,
should be considered s'ufficient so as to deny him the benefit of s·ick leave
on full emoluments for a period of 7 days when he is certified by a. competent
medical officer to be ill for that or a longer period. Sickness is a serious
misfortune to a. workman for it not only prevents him from earnillg his
normal wages, but is a drain on his meagre financial resources by way of
additional expenditure on food, hursing and visits to the medical cenl re etc.
[84 E-FJ
( 3) The Tribunal could not be said to have erred in restoring the benefit
which the workmen were receiving under an earlier award. The benefit . of
sick leave to the employees in the region was lost when the Act was made
applicable to the region from December 14, 1969. This _was obviously under
a mistaken impression. The Act does not deal with all -aspects of sickness
benefit and does not provide for the grant of leave on full emoluments during
the period of a workman's physical incapacity to earn his· normal wages because
of his sickness. [85 Jli.C]
·
( 4) There is no force in the argument that the Tribunal had granted
additional privilege leave for 7 days under the garb of sick leave because by
its very nature sick leave would be admissible only in the case of actual
sickness certified by a registered medical practitioner. [86 Bl
.(5) There is no evidence to show that the benefit had not been allowed
by other companies in the region. The Tribunal had examined the financiaf
-
)
-<
.... x
·-f-,
ALEMBIC GLASS v. THE WORKMEN (Shinghal, J.)
81
capacity of the companies and had
they were in good financial po&ition
~
-·~-....
••
I
given adequate reasons for holding that
and could bear the additional
burden.
[85 HJ
( 6) It has not been shown that the a wards are illegal or unjust, or would
adversely affect the economy or the industrial peace, or lead to imbalance in
the conditions of service in other industrial establishments.
[86 CJ
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 1975.
.,,,
Appeal by Special Leave from the Award of the Industrial Tribunal,
Gujarat in Reference (II) No. 30 of 1974, published in the Gujarat
Govt. Gazette dated 23-10-1975 and
Civil Appeal No. 631 of 1976
Appeal by Special leave from the Award of the Industrial Tribunal,
Gujarat in Ref. (II) No. 158 of 1974 published in the Gujarat Govt.
Gazette Part 1-L dated 15-4-76.
V. B. Patel, I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for the appellants (In
CA 1951/75).
S. T. Desai, A. P. Hathi, Mrs. S. Bhandare, M. S. Narnsimhan
c
K. C. Sharma, A. K. Sharma and A. K. Mathur for the appellants in
I)
C.A. 631176.
..
V. M. Tarkunde, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur for the Respondent
in C.A. 1951/75 and Res. 1(1) C.A. 631176.
·*
S. S. Khanduja, s: K. Jain and Mrs. Laxmi Arvid for Respondent
Nos. 1(2) In C.A. 631/76.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J.-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 by a common judgment.
Appeal No. 1951 of 1975 is directed against the award of the
Indust11ial Tribunal Gujarat, dated September 24, 1975, in the dispute
between the Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., Baroda, 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 workmen's demand for
10 days sick leave, with retrospective effect, and [ts accumulation over
a period of three years i.e. upto 30 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.
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 addition:1\
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
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 iL 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 Employees' 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.
While the.reference in the case of Jyoti Ltd., Baroda, was still pending, the Tribunal gave its award dat~d September 24, 1975 in the case
of the Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. The Tribunal, inter alia, awarded
7 days sick leave with fu.11 pay and dearness allowance to the workmen
of that Company in a year, with the facility of accumulation upto 21
days. It was stated before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workmen of
Jyoti Ltd., that the arguments advanced and the contentions made in the
case of the Alembic Glass Industries may be considered as those made
in their case also. The reference in the case of Jyoti Ltd. proceeded
accordingly and resulted in the award dated March 9, 1976 to which
reference has been made above.
The award was on the lines of the
earlier award in the case of the Alembic Glass Industries case, except
that the direction regarding 7 days sick leave was given retrcspectiye
effect from January 1, 1975. The Company applied for and obtained
special leave to appeal as aforesaid, with the further direction that the
appeal may be heard along with the identical matter (in the Alembic
Glass Industries case). This is why these two have become companion
appeals and are being diwosed of together.
The controYersy in these cases is whether the benefits admissible
under the Act in the matter of the grant of sick leave arc such as
to justify the rejection of the workmen's demand and the setting
aside of the Tribunal's awards in that respect.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants
that as the benefits of sections 4 7 and 49 of the Act are already
admissible to workmen in Baroda with effect from December 14,
1969, and they are quite adequate, the Tribunal committed an error
it
<
(
-~.
)
-<
-+
>
)
ALEMBIC GLASS V. THE WORKMEN (Shingha/, J.)
83
of law in granting the additional benefits mentioned above.
Reference in this connection has been made to section 61 of the Act
which provides that when a person is entitled to any of the benefits
provided by the Act, he shall not be entitled
to
receive
any
similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment.
The argument
was
raised
in
the
Tribunal,
but
was
rejected.
A similar question arose for consideration in
The
Hindustan
Times Ltd., New Delhi v. Their Workmen(!) and was answered as follows by this Court,-
"Mr. Pathak has ttied to convince us that in view of
the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance
Act,
1948, no provision need be made about sickness leave at
all.
That this Act has been applied, to the Company and
that the workmen of the Company get the benefit of this
Act is not disputed. . It is difficult to see however how
the benefit that the workmen will get under this Act can
affect the question of sickness leave being provided for the
workmen.
This Act it has to be noticed does not provide
for any leave to the workr:1en on the ground of sickness.
It provides in s. 46 (1) (a) for periodical treatment of any
insured person in case of his sickness if certified by a
duly appointed medical practitioner.
It is unnecessary to
mention here the several provisions in the Act; viz., Sections 4 7, 48 and 49 which deal with the eligibility of
workmen for sickness benefit and the extent of the benefit
that may be granted.
Section 56 of the-Act provides for
medical benefits to the insured workmen or
in
certain
cases to the members of his family. It appears
to
us
clear however that in providing for periodical payments to
an insured worker in case of sickness (sickness benefit) or
for medical treatment or attendance to him or the members of his family, the legislature did not intend to substitute any of these benefits for the workmen's
right
to
get leave on full pay on the ground of sickness."
A
B
c
D
E
F
The matter came up again for consideration by this Court in Technological Institute of Textiles v. Its Workmen and others( 2 ) and it
was held as follows with specific reference to the first
proviso
to
section 49 of the Act according to which a
person
qualified
to
claim sickness benefit is not entitled to it for the
initial
waiting
G
period of two days except in the case of continuous illness of the
nature mentioned therein,-
"With regard to sick leave, the argument on behalf of
the appellant was that benefits were granted by the Employees' State Insurance Act, but that is not a bar to the
demand of the workmen for sick leave.
The reason
is
that the first proviso to s. 49 of the
Employees' . State
(1) [1964] l S.C.R. 234.
(2) [1965] 2 L L.J, 149.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
Insurance Act states that a person qualified to claim sickness benefit shall not be entitled to the benefit for an initial waiting period of two days except in the case of a
spell of sickness following at an interval of not more than
fifteen days, the spell of sickness for which benefit
was
last paid. It is apparent that the Employees' State Insurance Scheme does not cover all contingencies of sickness and
in any event the first two waiting days are not covered.
In our opinion, the tribunal was, therefore, justified in its
view that the workmen are entitled to 7 days' sick leave
with wages on production of a medical certificate."
It would thus appear that the Scheme of the
benefits
admissible
under the Act cannot be said to cover the workmen's demand for
sick leave to the extent allowed by the Tribunal.
Section 61 of
the Act cannot thus be said to be applicable for the simple reason that
the benefits granted by the Tribunal are not similar to those admissible
under the Act.
The Act does not in fact deal with the question of
sickness leave.
•
The other question regarding the adequacy of the sickness benefit
under the provisions of the Act has been examined by the Tribunal
with reference to the reports of the National Commission of Labour,
1969, the Labour Laws Review Committee and the Norms Committee of Gujarat State, which go to show that the benefit cannot
be said to be adequate for, it works out to about half the average
wage of a workman, and even that amount is not admissible 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 the sickness benefit was last paid. It has to be
appreciated that a workman is prevented from earning the normal
daily wages during the period of his illness and there is no justification for the argument that the rate of benefit at about half his
wage, under the Act, should be considered sufficient so as to deny
him the benefit of sick leave on full emoluments for a period of 7
days when he is certified by a competent medical officer to be ill
for that or a longer period.
Sickness is a serious misfortune to a:
workman for it not only prevents him from earning his normal wages,
but is a drain on his meagre financial resources by way of additional expenditure on food, nursing and visits to the medical centre
etc.
It has not been disputed before us that the "region-cum-industry"
basis is suitable in cases like the present for examining any controversy regarding the workman's demand for additional benefits, but
it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the award of the benefit of sick leave to the workers of the two
Companies could not be justified on that basis.
We find that the
Tribunal has examined this aspect of the controversy also, and we
have no reason to disagree with the view which it has taken.
As
has been stated, the Act came into force in the region concerned
on December 14, 1969, and it has not been disputed before us that
till then it was the practice in the glass industries to grant sick leave
with wages for periods varying from 6 to 10 days.
In fact in the
,I
f
ALEMBIC GLASS v. THE WORKMEN (Shinghal, J.)
85
case of the Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., Baroda,
the
Tribunal
A
made an award for 7 days sick leave on full pay and dearness allowance in 1958, subject to the condition that the benefit would cease
to apply when the benefits of the Act became available to the workmen.
The benefit of sick leave was therefore lost when the Act
was made applicable to the region from December 14, 1969. That
was obviously under a mistaken impression of the sickness benefit
which the Act allowed for, as ha~ been shown, it does not deal with
B
all aspects of the demand for sickness benefit· and does not, at any
rate, provide for the grant of leave on full emoluments. during the
period of the workman's physical incapacity to
earn his
normal
wages because of his sickness.
It therefore appears that the Tribunal could not be said to have erred in restoring the benefit which
the workmen were receiving under the award of 1958, for it was
taken away under the mistaken impression that it had been adequately
C
replaced by the new provisions on the coming into force of the
Act.
The appellants have filed a statement (Ex. 7) containing information regarding the companies which .have provided the benefit of
sick leave to its workmen in the, region.
It shows that even though
the Act was applicable t9 the workers of the Precision Bearings India
D
Ltd., Baroda, Hindustan Brown Bovari Ltd., Baroda, the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., and
M. S. University Press,
Baroda,
the benefit of sick leave has been allowed to the workmen
of those companies. It is
therefore futile
to contend
that
the benefit should not be admissible on the ground thitt it had not
been allowed by other companies in the region.
We also find that
such a benefit has. been allowed in the case of gl:iss industries by
E
Shree Vallabha ·Glass Works Ltd.,
Vallabh
Vidyanagar,
Ogale
Glass Works Ltd., Oglewadi and Vijay Glass Works, Bombay. Even
the Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. has allowed 6 days sick leave in
a year to its employees in Bangalore and it is pennissible to accumulate it upto 12 days in addition to the current year's leave, under a
settlement dated July 17, 1969, which is being continued even after
the coming into force of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants
F
have invited our attention to the case between the Textile Labour
Association and the Ahmedabad Millowner's Association where the
demand for sick leave was refused but, as the Tribunal has pointed
out, the demand there was for a month's leave every year in addition
to 15 days casual leave and pay in lieu of privilege leave.
The
Full Bench of the Industrial Court in that case
considered
the
paying capacity of the mills also, and held that the additional leave
G
demanded by the workmen would be very much beyond the paying
capacity of the industry. As against this, the Tribunal has examined
the financial capacity of the two companies in question, and has
given adequate reasons for holding that they are in good financial
position and can bear the additional burden of sick leave.
Learned
counsel for the appellants have in fact not advanced· any argument
to the contrary.
H
Mr.· S. T. Desai has raised the argument, in the case of Jyoti
Ltd., Baroda, that the Tribunal laboured under a misconception that
A
B
c
D
86
SUPREME COCRT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
the sickness benefit would be lost for the first two days of sickness
under the first proviso to s. 49 of the Act, that the Tribunal should
not, in any view of the matter, have given the benefit of 7 days
sick leave, and that the workmen did not deserve
anything more
than sickness benefit for the first two days also.
According to him,
what has been awarded by the. Tribunal is additional privilege leave
for 7 days in the garb of sick leave.
The argument is however
futile because, . as has been stated, the Tribunal has correctly examined the controversy and given adequate reasons for allowing the
benefit of 7 days sick leave in the manner set out in the award.
Such a leave could not be categorised as privilege leave as, by its
very nature, it would be admissible only in the case of actual sickness certified by a registered medical practitioner.
It would thus appear that the appellants have not been able to
show that the awards in question are illegal or unjust;
or would
adversely affect the economy ·or the industrial peace, or lead to imbalance in the conditions of service in other industrial establishments.
It appears, however, that it was not necessary, in the circumstances
of the case, to award the .benefit of the sick leave with retrospective ,
effect from January 1, 1975, in the case of Jyoti Ltd. Baroda.
The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed except
that
the
award in the case of Jyoti Ltd., Baroda, is made effective from the
date of its commencement.
The appellant companies shall pay to
the workmen• the costs of these appeals; one set
of
counsel's
fees.
P.B.R.
Appeals dismissed.
" \,
: