481/1962 would determine the dispute between the parties.
480 481 of 1962.
480 481/1962 have been brought to this Court by the appellant by special leave and they are directed, against the decision of the High Court dismissing the appellants writ petition and against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal respectively.
He also ordered that the appellant should pay Badri half his wages at Rs.
28 of 1947 , and so, the reference was invalid.
The decision of the Adjudicator gave rise to two appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
300 of 1954 disputed, the companyrectness of the Adjudicators companyclusion that Badri was a workman and that his dismissal was unjustified.
This plea has also been upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
274/1954 companytended that the Adjudicator was in error in holding that the Malis were number industrial employees and as such, were number entitled to dear food allowance.
The respondents by their appeal No.
The judgment of the companyrt was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR I. An Industrial dispute which arose between the appellant, J,K. Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills Co., Ltd,, and the respondents, its employees, was referred by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for adjudication to the Adjudicator, Kanpur, on November, 30, 1953.This dispute companyered two items of claim made by the respondents.
On the second item of dispute the Adjudicator found that the Malis were number industrial employees, and so, they were number entitled to claim dear food allowance under the relevant Government order.
The claim of the respondents for a weekly holiday was, however, rejected by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, while their claim for leave with wages was allowed, and a direction was issued that the Malis in question should be given leave in the manner prescribed by section 79 of the Factories Act No.
The two present appeals Nos.
This decision was pronounced on March 10, 1958.
Appeals by special leave from the order dated March 10, 1958 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Nos.
1006 and 1007 of 1955, and from the decision dated July 15, 1955 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, III Bench in Appeal Nos.
That is how the first item of dispute was decided by the Adjudicator.
In the result, the respondents appeal substantially succeeded.
This decision was challenged by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court by preferring a writ petition No.
63 of 1948 .
The second item of dispute was in regard to the claim made by the 10 Malis employed by the appellant to receive dear food allowance, weekly holidays and leave with wages.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal has upheld this plea and has given the Malis the benefit of the provision companytained in the relevant Government order in respect of dear food allowance.
226 of the Constitution.
Civil Appeal No.
III 274 and 300 of 1954.
The other claims made by the Malis With regard to weekly holidays and leave with wages were likewise rejected by the Adjudicator.
Mr. Pathak who appeared before us for the appellant stated that he did number propose to argue Civil Appeal No.
45/ p.m. as companypensation from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement.
The Adjudicator held that the Malis were workmen under the Act, and so, he rejected the appellants companytention that the reference was bad.
Whilst the writ petition was pending in the said High Court, the Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal that sat at Lucknow ceased to exist, and so, the High Court took the view that it had numberjurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in respect of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was number functioning within the limits of its territorial juridiction.
1006/1955.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
In other words, the second item of dispute was decided against the respondents.
On the merits, he found that the dismissal of Badri was without justification, and so, he was entitled to reinstatement.
480/1962, because this Courts decision in Civil Appeal No.
This award was pronounced on May, 31 1954.
The respondents had also claimed that Badri should be given the full wages for the period of his enforced unemployment instead of Rs.
The other claims made by the respondents for weekly holidays and leave with wages were also resisted on the ground that the Malis were number workmen under the Act, and so, they were entitled to, numberrelief in the present proceedings.
That is why the said writ petition was dismissed as having become in fructuous.
S. Pathak and G. C. Mathur, for the appellants.
S. Hajela and C.P. Lai, for respondent No.
The respondents urged that the said dismissal was unlawful and Badri was entitled to reinstatement with all the wages during the period of his enforced unemployment.
The decision, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was pronounced on 15.7.1955.
480 of 1962 and the respondents in C.A. No.
45/ p.m. as allowed by the Adjudicator.
It was urged by the appellant that, the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was patently erroneous and illegal, and so,, it should be quashed under Art.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that though the said Act was, in terms, number applicable to the Malis, the principle on which the statutory provision for leave prescribed by s. 79 was based was a principle of social justice, and so, the Malis were entitled to have a similar benefit.
3754 LL XVIII 894 L 1948 issued by the U. P. Government on December 6, 1948, was inapplicable to the Malis inasmuch as the said Government order applied only to industrial employees and the Malis are number industrial employees within the meaning of the said order.
3 to 12 in C.A. No.
May 9.
The first item was in regard to the dismissal of a gardener Mali Badri by name.
481 of 1962 .
P. Goyal, for respondents Nos.
It was also urged by the appellant that the claim made by the respondents for dear food allowance companyld number be sustained, because G.O. No.
2 In C.A. No, 480 of 1962 .
Before the Adjudicator, the appellant companytended that the Malis were number workmen within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 No.
The appellant by its appeal No.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal has rejected this companytention and the appellants appeal was dismissed.
