M.L. Jain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 12th December, 1975. The State Government had refused the following question for adjudication by the Tribunal, namely:
Whether the workmen of J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kola, who as required to work on any national pr festival holiday, are entitled to twice he daily wages or thrice the daily wages for the day.
2. The learned Tribunal held that the worker who is called upon to work on any paid holiday should get double the wages in addition to the wages the will get for that paid holiday. The basis for this award was as office order dated 15th April, 1964, issued by the J.K. Synthetics L.d., Kota, be which the management declared four more days as paid holidays besides three notional holidays. In respect of these paid holidays it was stated that fence the factory was a continuous process factory, there was no possibility of its closing down on any day and as such those persons who are called upon to work on any of the paid doubles shall be paid double the normal rate of wages. The learned Tribunal was of the view that the true interpretation of the said order was that the labour shall in all get three times the normal Wages. The Tribunal thought that if the intention was 10 pay only twice the wages, then there was no necessity to state 'if called upon to work on any of the above paid holiday.' It would have been sufficient to mention or by 'if called upon to work on any holiday'. The fact that the words 'paid holidays' have been used, means that the worker shall get double the wages in addition to what he shall ordinarily get on that paid holiday. There will be a different in wages if a worker is railed upon to work on any unpaid holiday and if he is called upon to work on any paid holiday. The Tribunal had refined that in other industries, namely, the Gopal Industries & the Nagpal Combing Mills, the workers are paid thrice the normal rate if they are require to work on paid holidays.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the correctness of the adjudication, submitted that in the evidence that was ltd before he Tribunal, there was no mention of the Nagpal Combing Mills in the evidence, while in a similar concern namely, the Shri ram Rayons, the wags for working on a paid holiday are just tie same as the petitioner were giving. It was also contended that the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of the Factor its Act.
4. Now, the question that arises is whether the Tribunal has committed such in illegality as is apparent on the face of the record, and has resulted in substantial failure of justice. It appears that the reference was made under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, with a view to obtain interpretation of the said office order of the petitioners dated 15th April, 1964, other wise there was no need to ask for adjudication whether the wages should be double or treble and the question should have been in general terms. The aforesaid circular it was urged, shows quite clearly that if a worker is on called upon the work on any such holiday, even then he in entitled to payment at normal rate of wages. But if he is called upon to work, then he will get double the normal rate of wages, that is to say, the payment will be two times the normal rate of wages.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further invited attention to Section 52 of the Factories Act which provides for weeky holidays and according to which a substituted holiday is allowed where a worker is required to work on a weekly off day. Section 59 of the Factories Act further provides that the wages for overtime work will be at the rate of twice the ordinary rate of wages thus according to the statutory provisions, the worker cannot get more than double the wages as specified in the circular. But the Tribunal has given an award in conflict with these provisions.
6. The learned Counsel drew my attention to Motor and Machinery . v. State of West Bengal : AIR1964Cal262 . The Calcutta High Court observed that there is no section other than Section 2 under the Factories Act, 1948, or rules made thereunder which specifically deal with festival holidays or other declared holiday in the calendar and therefore, there is no reason, to suppose that Section 52(1)(a) was never intended to have any reference to festival holidays or declared holidays. This section provides only for a substituted holiday it a worker is called upon to work on any festival holiday. That being so, according to the legal position, the worker is entitled to a substituted holiday. In that view of the matter also the worker cannot claim thrice the rate of normal wage if he is required to work on a festival or a paid holiday.
7. It was urged that the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by misconstruing the unambiguous office order.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court, Novex Dry Cleaners, New Delhi v. Their Workmen 22 FLR 248 and French Motor Car Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1950-67) SCLJ 4136 in order to show that when an industrial court is construing the wage structure and similar conditions of service, it has to apply the principle of industry cum-region. In applying this principle, it has to compare the wages prevailing in similar concerns in the region to which it belonged. Similar concerns would he those in the same line of business as the concern with respect to which the despite is under consideration. It should be taken into cart to see that the concern from Other lines of business in the same region into account is as much as nearly as possible to the line of business carried on by the concern before it. It was urged that in the Kota region the comparison of the petitioner can be made only with Shri Ram Rayon's which manufactures synthetic textiles and can appropriately be considered a similar concern. The Copal Industries & the, Nagpal Combing Mills are not similar concerns. The Tribunal therefore has erred in applying the principle of region cum industry basis. If Hiram Rayon's did not make three times payment on a paid holiday, there is no justification for compelling the petitioner to make such payment.
9. The learned Counsel for labor, on the other hand, cited Agnani v. Badri Das (1950-67) 2 SCLJ 1150 a Supreme Court decision, according to which if the Tribunal put one interpretation upon a resolution of the management and the High Court thought it better to put another, that cannot be said to introduce an error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Tribunal. He also maintained on the basis of yet another Supreme Court decision, namely Md. Qassim Larry v. Muhammed Samsuddin and Anr. 1964 (9) RLR 115, that the industrial adjudication is not bound to uphold the terms of contract between the employer & the employees. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Industry Tribunal that the terms of employment, for instance, need to be revised in the interests 'of social justice, it is at liberty to consider the matter, take into account all advent factors and if a charge or revision of the terms appears to be justified, it can and often enough it does, racially change the terms of the contract of employment. The argument in shot is that the Tribunal having put one interpretation upon the order of the management, it is not open to this Court in a writ of certiorari to any wise revise the interpretation put by the Tribunal as long as it is in the interest of social justice. The writ of certiorari can be issue or Iv if it could be shown that the fit dirges of the Tribunal were ambition vide JK Spinning & Weaving Mills Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 1965 (II) LLJ 354.
10. It was then stated that the provisions of Section 50 of the Factories Act are attracted, and if a worker works overtime and gets double the wages, then for working on a day when he is entitled to be paid without doing any work, there is and the more reason to give him two times the wages in addition to what he would ordinarily be getting. There was therefore, no error committed by the Tribunal in making the impugned adjudication.
11. I have considered over the arguments and the law cited by the parties. A plain leading of the provisions of the Factories Act or of the circular on which the Tribunal based his decision do justify an interpretation that if a worker is required to work on a paid holiday he is entitled to thrice the normal ate of wages.
12. If one agrees to accept the position that the matter is governed by the provisions of Section 52 of the Factories Act. 1948, as appeal is to be the view taken in Motor & Machinery 's case : AIR1964Cal262 then if a worked is called upon to work on a paid holiday, he certainly is entitled not merely to the wages for the work cone but also to a substituted holiday has to be a paid holiday that is to say pay plus holiday. If the contention of the petitioners is allowed to prevail, the worker will no doubt suffer nothing in so far as his wages were concerned; but he shall stand decried of his holiday which can adequate be compensated by an extra pay packet in lieu thereof as adjudicated upon by the learned Industrial Tribunal. The interpretation put by the learned Tribunal conforms to the standards of social justice and fair play between the industry & the labour. Indeed, it was proved that the payment is made in this mariner be at least the Shri Gopal causeries. If the Shri ram Rayon is not making payment in a similar manner, that cannot provide a good precedent for application of the principle of industry-cum region basis. Moreover the adjudication made by the Tribunal does not contravene any provision of law nor is there any illegality in its proceedings resulting in substantial injury or substantial failure of justice and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition rather abates under Section 58(2) the Constitution (42nd) Amendment Act, 1976.
13. I therefore, see no force in this petition and it is hereby dismisses. The respondent No. 1 shall be paid Rs. 100/- as costs by the petitioner.