Legal Expert View:-
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, primarily deals with Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques. The Act by itself has nothing to do with holidays
or declaration of holidays but it is to be done by official announcement by the government.. As Rajan Associates put in, as per section 25 of the Act, if the due
date of maturity of any negotiable instrument falls on a holiday the same has to be extended to the next working day. Whereas some financial institutions
(which deal with such negotiable instruments like Banks) work on sundays it becomes essential to declare well in advance which are the holidays on which the
] financial institutions will remain closed (and accordingly the due date of instruments will be extended).Therefore, declaration of holidays has to be looked in
conjunction with section 25 of the NI Act. Hence the declaration of holidays is made by the appropreate government in excercise of power conferred by the
explanation to section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, holidays declared under the NI Act is meant for financial institutions and not for factories
and other establishments.
Supreme Court of India
Pfizer (P) Ltd. Bombay vs The Workmen on 30 November, 1962
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C
In dealing with the question of paid holidays, it may be relevant to remember that the holidays declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act
are usually applicable to Government institutions only and they have certain financial and statutory implications envisaged by the Act itself.
The commercial establishments and factories do not usually adopt these holidays and so, it would not be reasonable to insist that the appellant
is bound to grant holidays as sanctioned by theNegotiable Instruments Act. Besides' it is now generally accepted that there are too many public
holidays in our country and that when the need for industrial production is. urgent and paramount, it may be advisable to reduce the number of
such holidays in industrial concerns. In dealing with the present appeals, the need for more production which has weighed in our minds in
considering the question of 3 shifts, cannot be ignored. It is true that the Maharashtra Government seems to have adopted a very liberal policy
in the matter of public holidays. In 1961, for instance, the said Government had declared 28 public holidays out of which 3 happened to fall on
Sundays. It may be noticed that other State Governments have shown a tendency to reduce these holidays. U.P., for instance, had 18 public holidays,
Andhra Pradesh had 17, Mysore 15 and Madras 14 in 1961. According to the Govern- ment of India, the number of public holidays is generally limited
to 16. It is obvious that this question does not admit of a categorical answer one way or the other. It has to be decide on an ad hoc basis, bearing in
mind all the relevant facts. Having considered all the relevant facts in the present case, we are disposed to think that the number of public holidays
which are granted by the appellant to the respondents should be reduced from those sanctioned under the Negotiable Instruments Act to 16 every
year. The result is, both the appeals are allowed. Appeal No. 625 of 1962 succeeds and the change proposed to be made by the appellant according to
the notice of change served by it on the respondents is allowed to be made, subject to the decision of the Tribunal on the question remitted to it.
Appeal No.626 of 1962 is also substantially allowed and the number of paid holidays in a year is raised from 10 to 16. in the circumstances of this case,
there would be no order as to costs.
Tamil Nadu Petroproducts vs The Secretary To Government on 13 April, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 13..4..2007
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU Says,
10. Before going into the maintainability of the writ petition, it must first be ascertained whether there is a right on the part of any employee to
avail leave on the date of election in the absence of any statutory guarantee. As already referred to, the leave and holidays for employees
working in a private industry is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958
and so far as the weekly off and the Earned leave are concerned, the same is governed by the Factories Act and the Sick Leave is governed by the
Employees' State Insurance Act. Admittedly, the provisions of the N.I. Act have no application to a private industry such as the third respondent.
Even the Government Circular, which was further communicated by the second respondent Commissioner has only reference to the R.P. Act and,
therefore, that has no relevance to local body elections. The constitutional provisions creating the State Election Commission and the relevant
legislature and local bodies also do not contain any provision with reference to the right to have a holiday on the day of local body polls and the
only question remains is that in the absence of law, whether the workmen are entitled to avail the leave on their own accord and thereafter,
question the action of the Management treating the said leave taken by some workmen as leave on loss of pay, then approaching this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against any such deduction, is not permissible.
1. In the above circumstances, is it necessary/right to give holiday wage to Hotel employees who worked on holiday under N I Act?
2. One of Hotelier after due consultation with legal & labour officers declared to their union that the extra holiday wage for those
Who worked on 30.07.2015 will not be given. Can we follow the same?
Please give your thoughts,