625/62 and respondent No.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Narain, for the appellant in C.A. No.
Appeals by special leave from the award dated June 9, 1962, of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra in Reference IT No 16 of 1962.
g., i.e. 65, was rejected.
626/62 .
in C. A. No.
Both the appeals have been brought before this Court by special leave.
The appellant is a Company incorporated under the the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
625 626 of 1962.
625 of 1962.
T. Sule, Madan G. Phadnis, and Sharma, for the Respondent in C.A. No.
The second item of dispute was in regard to re fixation of the hours of work.
November 30.
The appellant desired to introduce three shifts in most of its departments and accordingly it had given a numberice of change under s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
This part of the award reducing the number of holidays is challenged by the respondents by their appeal No.
625/62 and the Appellant in C. A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
626 of 1962.
Both these proposed changes were resisted by the respondents.
626/62 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. Two items of dispute between the appellant Pfizer Private Ltd., and the respondents, its employees, were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, by the Government of Maharashtra under ss.
This increment would be in addition to the numbermal increment which may become due or after the 1st August, 1962.
The utilisation of the raw product received by the appellants factory in Bombay from its factory at Chandigarh was also number satisfactory and as a result of inadequate production, the appellant was riot able to meet adequately the demand for its products from the market.
12 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 on the 22nd of January, 1962.
The rejection was mainly due to higher M.A.P. Meta Amino Phenol companytent.
The Tribunal has rejected the appellants case for the introduction of three shifts in its factory and this part of the award is challenged by the appellant by its appeal No.
Both these items arose out of the proposed changes which the appellant wanted to make in the terms of employment governing the service of the respondents.
The appellant proposed to reduce the existing paid holidays to 8 instead of 27 to which the respondents were entitled because so long, the appellant has been giving to its employees the benefit of public holidays as declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In regard to the appellants claim for reducing the paid holidays, the Tribunal has substantially accepted the appellants case and has directed that, the holidays should be reduced to 10 every year.
1 1 d and.
has directed,the appellant to fix these holidays in companysultation with the respondents.
This was the first item of dispute between the parties.
It has also added that in view of the fact that a substantial reduction was being made in the number of paid holidays, the appellant should give the respondents an additional increment in their grade with effect from the 1st August, 1962.
