# MIS. TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD v. THE WORKMEN & ORS

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 594
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-05-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 991 and 996 of 1968
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidialingam, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mis-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-v-the-workmen-ors-5695
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act (46 of 1948),
s. 5 and Item 7 of Ill Schedule-Coal Mines Bonus Scheme providing for
a quasi ;udicial authority to decide on legality of strikes-If ultra viresDelegated legislation, limits of.
Jnd'ustrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 9A and IV Schedule-Change
of rest days from Sunday to another
day-Na riotice to workmen-If
legal.
The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948, was
enacted for making provision for the framing of a provident fund tcheme
and bonus scheme for persons employed in coal mines. Section 5 of the
Act empowers the Central Government to •frame the Coal Mines Bonlli
Scheme which may provide for all or any of the matters specified -in third
schedule to the Act. Item 7 of the schedule extends to matters which may
he necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing the Scheme.
Paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme provides for the effect
of participation in an illegal strike, and, in case a dispute arises u to
whether the strikt is illegal or lelftl for the purpose of the scheme, which
authority and according to what proetdure, is to decide that dispute.
In 1963, due to shortage of 1,'0wer, the appellant decided to stauer
weekly rest days in all its collieries.
In one of them, Wednesday, and
ia another, Thursday, were introduced as rest days instead of Sunday1.
The change was lo take effect from September 22, which was a Sunday.
The workmen failed to turn up for work on that Sunday as well as on
the next Sunday, September
29.
When they turned up for work on
Wednesday, September 25, at one colliery and on Thurday September 26,
at the other colliery they were told that those days were weekly rest days
and on that ground they were not.given any work. The appellant filed four
applications before the Regional Labour Commissioner,
who was the
authority und"f para 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme for a declaration
that there was an illegal strike by the workmen on the Sundays on which
they failed to turn up for work.
The respondents filed two applications
before the same authority stating that there was an illegal lockout on
September 25 and September 26 at the two collieries respectively. The
Regional Labour Commissioner held in favour of the worknlen that there
was no illegal strike. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Central
Industrial Tribunal and in writ petitions, by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that :
(I) para 8 of the
Scheme creating a quasi judicial tribunal was ultra vires and that such a
tribunal could only be created by the Legislature; and (2) that change
in the rest days did not effect any change in the conditions of service of
workmen in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule to the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence notice of change of rest days to
workmen under s. 9A of that Act was not neces'8ry.
Dismissing the appeal,
A
'
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
TATA IRON
STEEL co. LTD. v. WORKMEN (Dua,!.)
595
HELD : (I) (a) The increasing complexity of modern administration
and the need for flexibility capable of rapid readjustment to meet
the
changing circumstances, which cannot always be foreseen, in implementing
the socio-economic policy, pursuant to the establishment of a welfare
state as contemplated by the Constitution, have rendered it convenient,
practical and necessary, for the legislatures to have frequent resort to the
practice of delegating subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their
choice. Parliamentary .procedure
and discussion in getting through
a
legislative measure is time-consuming, and such measures cannot provide
·for all possible c.ontingencies since one cannot visualise the various permutations and combinations of human conduct and behaviour.
But the
delegation of legislative power is permissible only when the legislative
policy .and principle is adequately laid down and the delegate is only empowered to carry out the subsidiary poJ:cy within the guide

## Text

594
MIS. TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.
v.
THE WORKMEN & ORS.
May 5, 1972
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J
The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act (46 of 1948),
s. 5 and Item 7 of Ill Schedule-Coal Mines Bonus Scheme providing for
a quasi ;udicial authority to decide on legality of strikes-If ultra viresDelegated legislation, limits of.
Jnd'ustrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 9A and IV Schedule-Change
of rest days from Sunday to another
day-Na riotice to workmen-If
legal.
The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948, was
enacted for making provision for the framing of a provident fund tcheme
and bonus scheme for persons employed in coal mines. Section 5 of the
Act empowers the Central Government to •frame the Coal Mines Bonlli
Scheme which may provide for all or any of the matters specified -in third
schedule to the Act. Item 7 of the schedule extends to matters which may
he necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing the Scheme.
Paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme provides for the effect
of participation in an illegal strike, and, in case a dispute arises u to
whether the strikt is illegal or lelftl for the purpose of the scheme, which
authority and according to what proetdure, is to decide that dispute.
In 1963, due to shortage of 1,'0wer, the appellant decided to stauer
weekly rest days in all its collieries.
In one of them, Wednesday, and
ia another, Thursday, were introduced as rest days instead of Sunday1.
The change was lo take effect from September 22, which was a Sunday.
The workmen failed to turn up for work on that Sunday as well as on
the next Sunday, September
29.
When they turned up for work on
Wednesday, September 25, at one colliery and on Thurday September 26,
at the other colliery they were told that those days were weekly rest days
and on that ground they were not.given any work. The appellant filed four
applications before the Regional Labour Commissioner,
who was the
authority und"f para 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme for a declaration
that there was an illegal strike by the workmen on the Sundays on which
they failed to turn up for work.
The respondents filed two applications
before the same authority stating that there was an illegal lockout on
September 25 and September 26 at the two collieries respectively. The
Regional Labour Commissioner held in favour of the worknlen that there
was no illegal strike. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Central
Industrial Tribunal and in writ petitions, by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that :
(I) para 8 of the
Scheme creating a quasi judicial tribunal was ultra vires and that such a
tribunal could only be created by the Legislature; and (2) that change
in the rest days did not effect any change in the conditions of service of
workmen in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule to the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence notice of change of rest days to
workmen under s. 9A of that Act was not neces'8ry.
Dismissing the appeal,
A
'
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
TATA IRON
STEEL co. LTD. v. WORKMEN (Dua,!.)
595
HELD : (I) (a) The increasing complexity of modern administration
and the need for flexibility capable of rapid readjustment to meet
the
changing circumstances, which cannot always be foreseen, in implementing
the socio-economic policy, pursuant to the establishment of a welfare
state as contemplated by the Constitution, have rendered it convenient,
practical and necessary, for the legislatures to have frequent resort to the
practice of delegating subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their
choice. Parliamentary .procedure
and discussion in getting through
a
legislative measure is time-consuming, and such measures cannot provide
·for all possible c.ontingencies since one cannot visualise the various permutations and combinations of human conduct and behaviour.
But the
delegation of legislative power is permissible only when the legislative
policy .and principle is adequately laid down and the delegate is only empowered to carry out the subsidiary poJ:cy within the guidelines laid down
by the legislature.
The legislature cannot abdicate
its authority
aod·
cannot pass to some other body the obligation and the responsibility im'
posed on it by the Constitution. It can only utilise other bodies or authorities for the purpose of working out the details within the essential prin-·
c;ples laid down by it. Therefore, it has to be seen if there is a delegation of the essential legislative 'function, or if it is merely a case in which
some authority or body, other than the legislature, is empowered IO work
out the subsidiary and ancilliary details within the essential
guidelines.
policy and principles laid down by the legislative wing of the Government. [603H; 604A-E]
(b) Jn the present tase, the relevant schedule read with s. 5 of the
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act clearly lays down
the policy and principle for framing the scheme.
Paragraph 8 of tho·
scheme is a matter of detail which is subsidiary or ancilliary. to the main
purpose of the legislative measure· for implementing the scheme. It par:.
takes of the character of subordinate legislation on ancilliary matters
within the cond;tions laid down in the Act by s. 5 read with the relevant
schedule.
Paragraph 8 of the sclleme is accordingly valid and cannot he
considered to amount to excessive delegation of legislative power.-
1604E-Hl
(2) (a) Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides
that no employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of
service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in
the Fourth Schedule shall effect such change without giving notice to the
workmen likely to be affected by such change in the prescribed ma"ner.
Items 4, 5 and 8 of the Fourth Schedule refer to hours of work and rest
interyals.
lean
with
wa~es
and
holidays,
and
withdrawal
of
any customary
concession
or
privilege
er
change
"in usage:
respectively.
The expression
'hours of work
and .
rest
intervals"
and 'leave with wages and holidays' are wide enoueh to cover the case
of illegal strikes and rest days.
The expression 'withdrawal of customary
conces~ion or privilcee or change in usaqe' is also wide enough to take
within its fold the chanee of weeklv holidays from Sunday to some other"
dhy of the week.
f,604H; 605A.C]
(b) The real object and purpose of the section is to afford, an opportunity to the workmen to co~side~ the eff~ct of the proposed change and.
if nece<.sary, to reoresent their point of v1~w on the propo,s";I.
~ch con,-
sultation further serves to stimulate a feehng of common 10.mt mterest ol
the management and workmen in industrial pr!'eress .and increased llM"·
ductivitv.
This approach on the part of the md?stn~l e.moloyt;r would
reflect his hRrmonious and symLiathetic, cooper~tton 1n 1morov1n~ the
status and dignity
of the industrial
em~lovee .'n ~cc,~>rdance with !he
egalitarian and progressive trend df our mdi:;str1al JUrJSprudence
whtclt
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19'73] 1 3.C.R
strives to treat capital and labour as co-sharers and to break away 'fro~
the tradition of labour's subservience to capital. In order to e'fectively
a<:hieve the object underlying
s. 9A, it would be more approp.iate to
place on the Fourth Schedule read with s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes
Act a construction liberal enough to include change of weekly rest dayi
from Sundays to some other week day. I605F-H]
( c) It is no doubt true that whether the paid day of rest is Sunday or
some other week day would cause no financial loss to the workmen. But
Jinancial benefit cannot be said to be the sole criterion in considering the
question. It should not be ignored that due to long usage and other
factors Sunday as a holiday mav for conceivable reasons have assumed
importanr., for workmen arid it may also have special
significance
because, on Sunday, when their school going children have a holiday, the
e11tire famiy may be able to take part in recreational or other soc)al activities.
[605 C-FJ
(d) Sections 2('f), 52 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948, also fortify
the view that it is not immaterial or unimportant whether workmen are
given a Sunday or some otlier week dav as a weekly rest day.. [606A-CJ
(3) The appellant havin~ thus effected a change in the weekly days
of rest without complying with s. 9A read with the Fourth Schedule, the
change
must
be
held
to
be
ineffective
and
the previo•is
schedule of weekly days of rest. must be held to be still operative. Therefore, the appellant's contention that the workmen Cl ncerned had resorted
to illegal strike on Seotember 22 ood 29, must be rejected, and the respondents' contention that the appellant had illegally declined to ·give work
to them on September 25 and 26 and that the appellant had declared a
lock out on those two days which was illegal, has to be upheld. No doubt,
mere refusal to give work does not bv itself amount to lock-out; but in
the present case, whe" the employers closed the two collieries respectively
on September 25 and 26 they knew that this change in the weekly days
of rest was not acceptable to a considerable section of the workmen who
laad not come to work 0'1 Sunday, September 22. The closa•e of collieries
en the twe days in question was thus deliberate.
Coal having been declared a public utility service and notice of closure at contemplated by
s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act not having been given, the lock out
was illegal under s. 24 of the Act. f606F-H; 607 A-BJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 991
and 996 of 1968.
Appeals from the jud~ent and order dated November 16,
1966 of the Pa1na High Court in Civil Writ Judicial Cases Nos.
349 of 1965.
G. P. Pai, R. C. Prasad and 0. C. Mathur, for the appellant
(in all rthe appeals) .
Janardan Sharma, for respondent No. 1 (in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J:-These six appeals on certificate granted by
the
Patna High Court in two separate judgments disposing oi. six
oivil writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and
will, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment.
The appellant owns six collieries, but we are concerned in
the present controversy only with two collieries, namely, Sijua
· .and Bhelatand. Due to shortage of power, the appellant decidA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D.
E
F
G
TATA IRON & STEEL co. LTI>. v. W0RKMEN (Dua, J,) 597
e.d to stagger the . weekly rest days in all the collieries.
By a
notice dated September 10, 1963 a new schedule of rest days
was introduced in accordaince with which Sijua colliery was to
have every Wednesday as a rest day and Bhelatand colliery
every Friday as a rest day.
With respect to Bhelatand colliery
Friday was later changed to Thursday.
It is common ground
that previously Sunday was the weekly rest day in a)l the six
collieries. 'Ihe change in the weekly days of rest was to take
effect from September 15, 1963 which was a Suinday.
The
workers of the collieries did not tum up for work on Sunday
September ! 5, as a TCSuit whereof, negotiations were held between the appellant and some of the workmen represented by the
Colli~ry Mazdoor Sangh and it was agreed' that the new schedule would take effect from September 22, 1963. It μiay here
be pointed out that the respondents in these appeals, who were
also respondents in the High Court in the six writ petitions, are
members of another union called the Congress Mazdoor Sangh
which was not a party to that agreement. The said agreement
was not given full etlect, with the result that qn September 22,
1963, again, the workers did not turn up for work in the collieries.
The appellant thereupon filed two applications under
sub-para (1) of para 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) before the Regiooal Labour
Commissioner for a ,declaration that there was an illegal strike
on September 22, 1963.
Even after September 22, 1963, the
controversy between the &.ppellant and the workmen continued
!lllld on Wednesday, September 25, 1963 the workmen went to
Sijua Colliery for work. The appellant refused to give them
any work on the plea that Wednesday was a. weekly day of rest
in that colliery.
Similarly, when the workmen went on Thursday, September 26, 1963 to Bhelatand Colliery they were told
that Thursday was a weekly rest day and on this ground they
were not given any work. Shri B. N. Sharma, President of the
Congress Mazdoor Sangh, Bihar, Jorapokhar, Dhanbad, on behalf of the workmen of Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries, filed two
applications before the Regional Labour Commissioner
( C),
Dhanbad, stating thaUhere was illegal lock-out of the workers of
Siju~ Colliery on September 25, 1963 ancf of the workers of
Bhelatand Colliery on September 26, 1963 and that the said
Iock-0uts should be declared illegal for the purposes of the
scheme.
The Regional Labour Commissioner decided the two applications filed by Shri B. N. Sharma in respect of the alleged
Jock-out of workers of Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries by an
II
order dated November 22, 1963 and held that the non-working
~
of Sijua Bhelatand Collieries on September 25 and 26, 1963
respectively was due to a Jo.:k-out, which was illegal fqr pur-
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
poses of the Scheme.
It may be pointed out that the appella.nt
had also filed four more applications relating to the failure of
the workmen to work on September 15 and 29 in the two collieries which means that there were six applications before the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad filed by
the appellant seeking declaration that the workers of Sijua and
Bhelatand .Collieries had· resorted to strike on SeptemtJer 15,
22 and 29, 1963 which should be declared as illegal for purposes
of the Scheme.
The appli~ations relating to the strike on September 15, 1963 both at Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries being
declared as illegal were later withdrawn in view oJ' the agreement
dated September 18, 1963, wilh the result that only fou~ applications by the appellant were ultimately adjudicated upon by the
Regional Labour Commissioner who, by an order dated November 14, 1964, gave a declaration that there was ,no strike, much
less an illegal strike, by the workers on September 22 and 29,
1963. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the finding
that change in the weekly days of rest was not in accordance with
Jaw.
The appellant appealed to the Central Industrial Tribunal,
Dha.nbad in ail the six matters, but without success. Aggrieved
by these decisions, the appellant approached the Patna High Court
by means of six writ petitions which were disposed of ·by two
separate orders both dated November 16, 1966. In one judgment, the High Court dealt with the four writ petitions complaining of illegal strike and in the other with the two writ petitions
complaining of illegal Jock-out. The High Court upheld the decision 9f the Regional Labaur Commissioner as also of the Central
Industrial Tribunal on appeal, and dismissed all the six writ petitions. It is in these circumstances that the present six appeals
have been presented to this Court by the appellant-Messrs Tata
Iron & Steel Company Limited.
The principal question which requires consideration though
of considerable importance lies within a narrow compass.
Its
importance, as pointed out by both sides, lies in the fact that the
Bonus provided under the Scheme depends on attendance and if
it is held that the workers had resorted to illegal strike, then they
would be deprived of bonus for a quarter of the year. The· main
argument raised on behalf of the .appellant centres round the
construction to be placed on s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act ..
No. XIV of 194 7 (hereinafter called the Act), which deals with
the notice of change in the condi•ions of service applicable to a
workman in respect of matters ·specified in the Fourth Schedule
to the Act. If notice contemplated by this section was necessary,
whieh admittedly was not given, then the change in the new
schedule of rest days· was not according to law and the workers
A
B
c
D
E
F
('
·'
H
' ...
A
TATA !ROI:< & STEEL co. LTD. v. WORKMEN (Dua, J.) 599
were justified in ignoring the change .. Sections 9~ it11d 9B. ~Jone
constitute Chapter II-A which was introduced 1Il the .Act by
means of Act no. 36 of 1955 which came into effect on March 10,
1957. These two sections read as under :-
9A. "Notice of change : No employer, who proposes
to effect any change in the conditions of service appliJl
cable to any workman in respect of any matter specified
in the Fourth Schedule, shall. effect such change-
(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be
affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or
C
(b) within twentyone days of giving si:ch notice :
D
E
F
G
H
Provided that 1no notice shall be required for
effecting any such change-
(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of
and settlement, award or &~cision of the AppelIate Tribunal constituted under the Industrial
Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950; or
(b) where the workmen likely to be affected by the
change are persons to whom the Fundamental
and Supplementary Rules,. Civil Services ( Classification, Cpntrol and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services
(Temporary Service)
Rules,
Revised
Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations,. Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway
Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the
appropriate Government in the Official Gazette,
apply.
9B. Power of Government to exempt : Where the
appropriate Government is of opinion that the application of the provisions of section 9A to any class of
industrial establishments or to any class of workmen
employed ·in any industrial estabilishment affect the employers in relation thereto so prejudicially that such
application may cause serious repercussion on the industry concerned and Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of the
said sectio!l shall not apply or shall apply, snbject to
such conditions as may be specified in the notification,
to that class of industrial establishments or to that class
of workmen employed in any industrial~ establishment."
GOO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19'73] 1 S.C.R.
According to the appellant, there was no ch3.nge illl the conA
ditions of service applicable to the workmen in respect of any
item falling in the Fourth Schedule.
Here, we may reproduce
only three items out of eleven contaillled in the Fourth Schedule,
because according to the arguments addressed at the bar, these
were the only three entries considered to be relevant. These entries are nos. 4, 5 and 8 and they read as under :
B
"
*
•
•
•
•
4. Hour, of work and rest intervals;
5. Leav~ with wages and holidays; and
*
*
*
*
*
8. Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or change in usage".
The arguments forcibly pressed by Shri Pai in this Court
broadly speaking, proceeded thus :
The change in the schedule of rest days did not effect any
change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in
respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule. It was
due to an emergency created by unforeseen circumstances beyond
the appellant's control resulting i.n power shortage that the appellant was compelled to stagger tlie weekly days of rest in the six
collieries, including the two collieries concerned in these appeals.
The basic cause as disclosed in 'annexure A' to t.he writ petition
was that on account of heavy percolation of water, power offtake to the collieries had reached its peak and the power-house
was no more able to cope with the additional requirements.
Further rullilling of the power-house in the overloaded condition
was also likely to result in break-down at the power station,
thereby totally cutting off the power supply, For this reason it
becam,ll absolutely necessary to stagger the weekly days of rest
in the six collieri~s and also in the Coal W ashery at Jamadoba. By
staggering the weekly days of rest, according to the argument, the
daily load of power was intended to be reduced on the power
station.
There was no financial Joss to the workers because it
was only a change of weekly rest day from Sunoay to Wednesday
in one colliery and from Sunday to Thursday in the other. This
chainge in the weekly rest days remained subject to the same
conditions of ser\.ice. The workers were under the changed
schedule entitled to one and half time the wages, where applicabile, only ii called to work on the newly fixed days of rest. As
it was an emergency measure which was to be short-Jived, it was
physically ~possible to give notice of 21 days as cOl!ltemplated
by cl. (b) of s. 9A. In this connection emphasis was laid on the
· fact that on September 27, 1963 a "General Notice" was issued
by the appellanfs Chief Mining Inspector, Shri R. N. Sharma,
notifying that the aefects at the Power House had been successfully attended to with ihe result that old schedule of working was
c
D
F
G
H
TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. V, WORKMEN (Dull, J.)
601
A
restored.
In any event, the staggering of weekly days of rest,
contended Shri Pai, did not fall under any item of the Fourth
Schedule to the Act. The counsel explaiined that it c0uld not fall
under item 4 because the expression "rest intervals" con~emplates
intervals during the working hours in the c0urse of a smg.le day
and not the weekly rest days : it c0uld also not fall under item 5
B
because the change in question has nothing to do with. eithe~ holidays or leave with wages : item 8 would also be mapphcable
because it did not amount to withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or to change in usage.
The appellant, as a subsidiary point, also challenged the rires
of para 8 of the Scheme contending that this para creates
C
a quasi-judicial Tribunal and such a Tribunal can only be created
by the legislature and not by an executive fiat and that s. 5 of the
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act (No. 46 ot
1948), which authorises the Central Government to frame the
Scheme, does not empower the Central Governmeint, either,
expressly or by necessary implication, to create such a Tribunal.
B
This challenge was pressed with some force and was also elaborated though it is interesting to note that it was the appellantcompany itself which approached the Regional Labour Commissioner under this very paragraph for relief by r.ieans of four applications and on feeling aggrieved by the adverse orders of the
Commissioner in these four matters and in the two matters in
E
which the appellant had unsuccessfully contested the workmen's
applications seeking declaration of illegal lock-outs on September 25 and 26, 1963, took these matters on appeal to the Central
Industrial Tribunal. Instead of ignoring these Tribunals or questio.ning the legality of the appointment of the Regional Labour
Commissioner and of the Central Industrial Tribunal, the appelF
lant, it is noteworthy, preferred to take the chance of obtaining
favourable orders from them. .. · ·
All these arguments were countered on beha1£ of the respcm-
:Jents ~d i~ wa~ contended tha~ the appellant had from the very
i~cept10n v1sua!Jzed the difficulties created by the heavy percolation o)' water to last for a period of six weeks as would be clear
G
from the appellant's notice. If that be so, then, it is futj]e to contend tha~ the emergency being short-lived, 21 days' notice could
not be g1v~m by the appellant. , But assuming that the emergency
wa~ shorthved and there. w~ a difficulty in giviillg the requisite
no~1.ce, the appellant, which 1s a prosperous conce.n, could have
paia wages to ~e workers and laid them off for one day in a week
H
m or~er to avoid over-loading of the power station. This would
have m any event served to promote the goodwill and harmonious
co-operation between the management and the labour, ultimately
leadmg to more helpful understanding of the common difficulties
4-LIS2SupCI/73
60Z
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19'73] 1 S,C,R.
facing ihe industry, ~ ihe prosperity of which both of them as
.co-iliarers should feel equally interested. This would accord with
the industrial jurisprudence as it has developed in our country
iince 1950 under inspiration from the broad guidelines afforded
by the industrial relations policy as envisaged in our Constitution.
In so far as the items of the Fourth Schedule to the Act are concerned, according to the respondents, Sunday as a weekly rest day,
was being granted to the workers of these two collieries as indeed
it was hieing granted to the workers of all the collieries owned by
the appellant, on the basis of old usage within the contemplation
of item no. 8. This matter also falls within the expression "rest
intervals" used in item no. 4, proceeded the cqntention, because
the subject of "hours of work and rest intervals" contemplated
by· this entry can reasonably be construed to include both "daily
hours of work and rest intervals" and "weekly hours of work and
rest intervals". Besides, the question of weekly rest days can als0
fall within item no. 5 because it is inextricably connected with
the question of holidays and leave with wages, the weekly rest day
being a holiday with wages. Paragraph 8 of the Scheme, according to the respondents, is also intra vires because item no. 7 of
the third schedule read with s. 5 of the Coal Mines Provident
Fuad and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 contemplates that the Scheme
can also provide for any matter which may be necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing the Scheme. Now if any
dispute arises about the payment of bqnus depending on the
attendance of an employee in accordance with ·the terms of the
Scheme, then, according to item 7 of the Third Schedule, settlement of such a dispute may legitimately be considered to be necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing the Scheme. Constitution of a Tribunal and laying ·down procedure for the proceedings be.fore such a Tribunal for adjudicating upon such a
dispute would, according to the respondents' contention, fall within
item no. 7 and would, therefore, be intra vires.
Dealing with the last point first, the Coal Mines Provident
Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 46 of 1948, was opginally enacted
for making provision for the framing of a Provident Fiind Scheme
and Bonus Scheme for persons employed in coal mines. In
1971 the purpose of this Act was extended to the framing "f a
family bonus Scheme but that amendment does not concern us.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
TATA IRON & STEEL co. LTD. V. WORKMEN (Dua, J.)
603
Section 5 oi this Act empowers the Central Government to frame
the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme which may provide for all or any
of the matters specified in the Thi.rd Schedule.
(Prior to the
amendment of 1971 this Schedule was, numl:-ered as Second
Sehedule). This Schedule reads :
"
THE THIRD SCHEDULE
(See Section 5)
Matters to be provided for in the Coal Mines
Bonus Scheme
1. The paymeint of bonus dependent on 'the attendance
of an employee during any period.
2. The employees or class of employees who shall be
eligible for the bonus and the conditions of eligibility.
3. The rate at which the bonus shall tie payable to an
employee and the manner in which the bQnus shall
be calculated.
4. The conditions under which an employee may be
debarred from getting the bonus in whole or in part.
5. The rate at which sums shall be set apart by the employer for payment of bo:nus, and the time and
manner oi such payment.
6. The registers and records to be maintained by the
employer or contractor and the returns to be furnished by him.
6A. The transfer, by an employer to the F~d or any
other fund specified bty the Central Government, of
the amount of bonus remaining unpaid or unclaimed
for a period of six months from the eind of the quarter
to which the bonus relates and the extinguishment
of the employer's liability to his employee to the
extent of the amount so transferred.
7. Any other matter which is to be provided for in the
Coal Mines Bonus Scheme or which may be necessary or proper for the purpose of implemero.ting that
Scheme."
Item no. 7, it may be noticed, extends to matters which may be
necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing the Scheme.
Now, the increasing complexity of modern administration and
the need for flexibility capable of rapid readjustment to meet
changing circumstances, which cannot always be foreseen, in implementing our socio-economic policy, pursuant to the establishment of a welfare State as contemplated by our Constitution,
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
have rendered it convenient and practical, nay, necessary, for the
legislatures to have frequent resort to the practice o{ delegatiug
subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their choice.
The
parliamentary procedure and discussion in getting through a
legislative measure in the legislatures is usually time-com11ming.
Again, sm:h measures cannot provide for ail possible contingencies biecause one cannot visualize various permutations and combinations of human conduct and behaviour.
This explains the
necessity for delegated or conditional legislation.
Due to the
challenge of the complex
socio-economic
probleins 'requiring
speedy solution the power of delegation has by now, as per necessity, become a constituent ~lement of legislative power as a whole.
The legal position as regards the limitations on this power is,
however, no.longer in doubt. The delegation o',' legislative power
is permissible only when the legislative policy and prinCiple is
adequately laid down and the delegate is only empowered to carry
out the subsidiary policy within the guidelines laid down by the
legislature.
The legislature, it must be borl)e in mind, cannot
abdicate its authority and cannot pass on to soi.1e other body the
obligation and the responsib~lity imposed on it by the Constitution. It can only utilise other bodies or authorities for the purpose of working out the details within the essential principles laid
down bv it. · In each case, therefore, it has to be seen if there is
delegation of the essential legislative function or if it is merely a
case in which some authority or biody other than the legislature is
empowered to work out the subsidiary and ancillary details
within the essential guidelines, policy and principles, laid down
by the legislative wing of the Government.
In the present case
the relevam schedule read with s. 5 of Act No. 46 of 1948 clearly
lays down the policy and the principle for framing the Scheme.
Para 8 of the Coal Mines Bemus Scheme provides for the effect
·of participation in illegal strike and, in case a dispute arises as
to whether a strike is legal or illegal for the purposes of the
scheme, which authority, and according to what procedure, is to
decide that dispute. This, in our view, is a matter of detail which
is subsidiary or ancillary to the main purpose of the legislative
measure for implementing the Scheme.
It partakes of the character of subordinate legislation on ancillary matters falling within
the conditions laid down in the aforesaid Act hy s. 5 read with
the relevant Schedule. Para 8 of the Scheme is accordingly valid
and it cannot be considered to amount to excessive delegation of
legislative power.
The chailenge on this score is, therefore.
devoid of merit.
We now come to the main contention. Section 9 A which has
already been reproduced, Jays down that change in the conditions
of service in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule
shall not have effect unless a notice is given to the workmen
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
'
..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
TATA IRON & STEEL co. LTD, v. WORKMEN (Dua, J.) 60 5
likely to be affected by such change. The relevant entries of the
Fourth Schedule have already been reproduced. It appears to us.
that entries dealing with "hours of work and rest intervals" and
"leave with wages and holidays" are wide enough to cover the
case of illegal strikes and rest days.
Indeed, entry ;io. 8 dealing
with "withdrawal of customary concession or privilege or change
i:n usage" .is also wide enough to take within its fold the change
of weekly holidays from Sunday to some other d<1y of the week,
because it seems to us to be a plausible argument to urge that
fixation of Sundays as weekly rest days is founded on usage
and/ or is treated as a customary privilege and any change in such
weekly holidays would fall ·within the expressions "change in
usage" or "customary privilege''.
We are not unmindful of the force of the argument pressed
on behalf of the appellant that if a holiday is changed from Sunday to some other week day it would not affect the material gain
or financial benefit available to the workmen because the workmen
would nontheless get one day off with pay in a week.
Whether
the paid day of rest is a Sunday or some other week day would
no doubt cause no financial loss to the workmen. But the financial benefit cannot be the sole criterion in considering tKis question. In this connection it must not be ignored that due to Jong
usage and other factors Sunday as a holiday may for conceivable
reasons have assumed importance for workmen.
For certain
classes of workmen Sunday as a weekly rest day may also have
special significance.
Workmen may, for example, also generally
like to have weekly rest day on a Sunday when their school gping children have a holiday so that the entire family may be able
to take part in recreational or other social activities.
This consideration has its own importance. Ii that be so, then, notice for
effecting such a change would be within the contemplation of
s. 9A.
The real object wd purpose of enacting s. 9A seems to
be to afford an opportunity to the workmen to consider the effect
of the proposed change and, if necessary, to represetnt their point
of view on the proposal.
Such consultation further serves to
stimulate a feeling of common joint interest of the management
and workmen in the industrial progress and increased productivity. This approach on the part of the industrial employer would
reflect his harmonious and sympathetic co-operation in improving the status and dignity of the industrial employee in accordance with the egalitarian and progressive trend of our industrial
jurisprudence which strives to treat the capital and labour as cosharers and to break away from the tradition of labour's subservience to capital.
Shri Pai referred us to the Factories Act, 63 of 1948 and
submitted that s. 52 read with s. 2(f) of that Act indicates that
adult workers are not required to work on Sundays except under
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
certain conditions. It was argued that when Sundays as rest days
are considered of importance, the law in tenns so provides.
In
the present case, according to the submission, no importance is
intended to be attached to Sundays as weekly days of rest.
A
challlge from Sundays to some other week days as days of rest
should be considered as a matter of little or no importance for
the workmen. We are unable to agree with this submission. In
our opinion, the Factories Act fortifies our view by suggesting
that it is not immaterial or unimportant whether w<;>rktnoo are
given a Sunday or some other week day as a weekly rest day.
Though reference was also made b)y Shri Pai to the Mines Act,
35 o,f 1952, in our opinion, each statutory provision has to be
construed on its ow:n language, ·though the general scheme of
legislation on a given subject may, if necessary, be kept in view,
if it throws helpful light on the construction to be placed on an
ambiguous provision.
No such consideration arises in the present
case.
In our opinion, in order to effectively achieve the object
underlying s. 9A, it would be more appropriate to place on the
Fourth Schedule read with s. 9A a construction liberal enough to
include change of weekly rest days from Sooday to some other
week day.
The appellant having thus effected a chani;e in the
weekly days of rest without complying with s. 9A read with the
Fourth Schedule this change must be held to be ineffective and
the previous schedule of weekly days of rest must be held to be
still operative.
Reference was made at the bar to certain decisions but they are of little assistam.ce in construing the statutory
provisions with "•hich we are concerned and which, as already
ob,~erved, have to be construed on their own language and scheme.
We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to refer to those decisions.
The result then is that the appellant's contention that the
workmen concerned had resorted to illegal strike on September
22 and 29, 1963 must be rejected. On this view the respondents'
contention that the appellant had iJlegally declined to give work
to the respondents on· September 25 and 26, 1963 and that the
appellant had declared lock-out on those two days which was
illegal has also to be upheld. No doubt, mere refusal to give
work does not by itself amount to lock-ont but in the present case
it cannot be disputed that when the employers closed the Sijua
and Bhelatand collieries respectively on September 25 and 26,
1963 they knew that this change in the weekly days of rest was
not acceptable to a considerable· section of the workmen who
had lllOt come to work on Sunday September 22, 1963. The'
closure of the place of work in the two aforesaid collieries on the
A
r~
~...
!,,,.
B
,,.,
411
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
TATA IRON & STEEL co. LTD. v. WORK.MEN (Dua, J.) ti07
two days in question was thus deliberate. Coal having been declared a public utility service, as observed by the Regional Labour
Commissioner in his order, notice as contemplated by s. 22 of
the Act was necessary. Such a notice having not been given, the
lock-out was clearly illegal under s. 24 of the Act.
The High
Court was in our opinion right in the orders made by it in the
B writ petitions.
All the six appeals thus fail and are dismissed with
cO!lts.
Only one set of costs.
Appeals dismissed.
V.P.S.