Workmen of Binny Ltd. Vs. Management

Workmen of Binny Ltd. vs Management

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jan 08, 1986

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/376305

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/376305
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K. Jagannatha Shetty, A.C.J and ;N.D. Venkatesh, J.
Decided On: Jan 08, 1986
Case Number: W.A. No. 2797/85
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881[C.A. No. 26/1881]Section 138; [V.Jagannathan, J] Whether the Power of Attorney Holder is competent to file the complaint and give the evidence in a proceedings under Section 138 of the Act? Held, There is no bar for the Power of Attorney holder to initiate proceedings under Section...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections: Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 - Sections 3

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Workmen of Binny Ltd.

Respondent

Management

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 - Sections 3
Reported In: ILR1986KAR519; 1986(1)KarLJ370; (1986)ILLJ468Kant

Excerpt

.....branch of the same bank, attract the offence under section 138 of the n.i. act ? held, whether the cheque was returned for the reasons of the account being closed or the account being transferred to some other branch, is not the criteria, but the fact is that there was no fund available in that particular account of the respondent to honour the cheques thereon in favour of the complainants. on facts, held, even the reasons given by the bank accounts closed and transferred to shanthinagar branch also can be brought within the expression insufficient funds .hence, the offence under section 138 of the act is attracted. section 139; [v. jagannathan, j] presumption under requirement as to complainant proving the existence of legally recoverable debt respondent admitting his liability towards complainant letter of acknowledgment of debt cheque in question were issued by the respondent to clear the existing debt held, the very fact that the respondent has admitted his liability towards complainants by having committed himself to pay the amounts mentioned in the letter of acknowledgement, it is not open to the respondent to take the plea that he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants. further, in the case on hand, cheque being issued and the same being presented and it being dishonoured and following that the notice being issued by each one of the complainants to the respondent and finally despite service of notice, the respondent having not made any payment within 15 days from the date of service of notice are satisfied, and nothing remains for the complainant to prove further his case. in fact, in response to the legal notice issued to the respondent, in the reply, the respondent does not deny the cheques being issued by him and does not take up the plea that the liability is subject to fulfillment of any of the conditions contained in the memorandum of agreement and the respondent himself strengthened the case of the complainants by acknowledging..........national holidays and eight other festival holidays in regard to the workmen employed in the mills. the declaration of these holidays is governed by the karnataka industrial establishments (national and festival holidays) act, 1963 (shortly 'the act'). section 3 of the act provides : '3. grant of national and festival holidays - every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year a holiday of one whole day on the 26th january, the 15th august and the 2nd october and five other holidays each of one whole day for such festivals as the inspector may, in consultation with the employer and the employees, specify in respect of any industrial establishment.'this section came to be amended by karnataka act no. 7/85 as follows : '2. amendment of s. 3 - in s. 3 of the karnataka industrial establishment (national and festival holidays) act, 1963 (karnataka act 24 of 1963), for the word 'five', the word 'six' shall be substituted, and at the end, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely :- 'provided that the first day may shall be one of the said six other holidays except in the case of industrial establishments owned or controlled by the government of india.' 2. the management thereupon approached the labour officer, respondent-2 herein, to revise the list of holidays for the year 1984 including 1st may as a holiday in place of any one of the festival holidays already approved for the year 1984. the labour officer did not agree with the suggestion of the management. he held that the management could not disturb the list of holidays already approved for the year 1984 and it should declare 1st may, 1984 as an additional holiday. he thereby increased, the total number of holidays for year 1984 from eleven to twelve. 3. the management challenged the decision of the labour officer in the writ petition referred to above. there were like petitions by other industrial undertakings questioning the similar decision taken by the labour officer. the learned single judge by.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Jagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.

1. This Writ Appeal raises a short but an interesting question as to the number of holidays to be declared by the State Industrial undertakings. The question is :

Whether, after the amendment to S. 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963, by Act No. 7/85, the employees of the Industrial undertakings are entitled to have 1st day of May as a holiday, in addition to the other approved holidays.

The Industrial establishment concerned in this appeal is Binny Mills Ltd. Bangalore. The management has declared three national holidays and eight other festival holidays in regard to the workmen employed in the Mills. The declaration of these holidays is governed by the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 (Shortly 'the Act').

Section 3 of the Act provides :

'3. Grant of National and Festival Holidays - Every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year a holiday of one whole day on the 26th January, the 15th August and the 2nd October and five other holidays each of one whole day for such festivals as the Inspector may, in consultation with the employer and the employees, specify in respect of any industrial establishment.'

This section came to be amended by Karnataka Act No. 7/85 as follows :

'2. Amendment of S. 3 - In S. 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 24 of 1963), for the word 'five', the word 'six' shall be substituted, and at the end, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely :-

'Provided that the first day May shall be one of the said six other holidays except in the case of Industrial establishments owned or controlled by the Government of India.'

2. The management thereupon approached the Labour Officer, Respondent-2 herein, to revise the list of holidays for the year 1984 including 1st May as a holiday in place of any one of the festival holidays already approved for the year 1984. The Labour Officer did not agree with the suggestion of the management. He held that the management could not disturb the list of holidays already approved for the year 1984 and it should declare 1st May, 1984 as an additional holiday. He thereby increased, the total number of holidays for year 1984 from eleven to twelve.

3. The management challenged the decision of the Labour Officer in the Writ Petition referred to above. There were like Petitions by other industrial undertakings questioning the similar decision taken by the Labour Officer. The Learned Single Judge by a common order dated August 22, 1985 allowed those Petitions holding that under S. 3, as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 7/85, the establishments are not required to increase the number of holidays for workmen, although they are bound to declare 1st May as one of the holidays.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge, the Union representing the workmen of the Mills has preferred this Writ appeal.

4. We heard Mr. Subba Rao for the appellant and Mr. Kasturi for the Management. In our opinion, the view taken by the Learned Judge appears to be justified. We do not think there is any other view possible. Before the amendment to S. 3 of the Act, it was obligatory for the management to give its workmen three national holidays specified in that Section and atleast five other holidays. The minimum number of holidays which the management then, under law, ought to give was eight. After the amendment, the word 'five' in S. 3 has been substituted by the word 'six' with the following proviso :

'Provided that the first day of May shall be one of the said six other holidays except in the case of Industrial establishments owned or controlled by the Government of India.'

The provisions of the amended Section are clear and unambiguous. The proviso to S. 3 makes it abundantly clear that the 1st day of May shall be one of the said six other holidays which the management is obliged to declare. It does not state that first day of May should be in addition to those six other holidays.

5. Even the statement of objects and reasons for introducing the amendment to S. 3 of the Act does not lend support to the contention urged for the appellant. It reads :

'In his Budget speech during 1982, the Chief Minister announced Government's intention to declare the 1st day of May as a paid holiday for industrial workers in the State.

When the Government of India were approached for obtaining the previous instructions of the President for amending S. 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963, they informed that they were not agreeable to the day being declared a holiday in respect of establishments owned or controlled by the Government of India.

It is therefore considered necessary to declare 1st day of May as a paid holiday for industrial workers in the State of Karnataka except in respect of establishments owned or controlled by Government of India.'

We are, therefore, firmly of the opinion that the management is not obliged to increase the number of holidays by one more day.

6. We accordingly reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1986 Same Parties Workmen of Binny Ltd. vs Management Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge K. Jagannatha Shetty, A.C.J and ;N.D. Venkatesh, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Ho...

Labour and Industrial