| C.A. 631 of 1976 Appeal by Special leave from the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat in Ref. (II) No. 1951/75 and Res. 30 of 1974, pub lished in the Gujarat Govt. Gazette dated 23 10 1975 and Civil Appeal No. 1(1) C.C.631/76. Appeal by special leave in reference (I) no. 1951 of 1975 is directed against the award of the industrial Tribunal Gujarat, dated September 24, 1975, in the dispute between the Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., Baroda, and its workmen, while appeal No. 2(2) is directed in respect of the award the Tribunal made to the workmen of Jyoti Limited, Baroda. These two are companion appeals by special leaves. They have been heard together at the in stance. of the learned counsel for the parties, and will be disposed by a common judgment. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J.S. The demand was resisted by the Companies in both cases. Speaking broadly, the dispute " The matter came up again for consideration by this Court in Technological Institute of Textiles vs Its Workmen and others(2) and it was held as follows with specific reference to the first proviso to section 49 of the Act according to which a person qualified to claim sickness benefit is not enti tled to it for the initial waiting period of two days except in the case of continuous illness of the nature mentioned therein, "With regard to sick leave, the argument on behalf of the appellant was that benefits were granted by the , but .that is not a bar to the demand of the workmen for sick leave. The argument was raised in the Tribunal, but was rejected. It is apparent that the Employees ' State Insurance Scheme does not cover all contingencies of sickness and in any event the first two waiting days are not covered. In our opinion, the tribunal was, there fore, justified in its view that 7 days ' sick leave with wages on pro duction of a medical certificate. A similar question arose for consideration in The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs Their Workmen(1) and was answered as follows by the Court, " T. S. Desai has raised the argument, in the case of Jyoti Ltd., Baroda, that the Tribunal laboured under a misconception that 86 the sickness benefit would be lost for the first two days of sickness under the first proviso to section 49 of the Act, that it should not, in any view of the matter, have given the benefit of 7 days sick leave, and that the workmen did not deserve anything more than sickness benefit for the second two days also. According to him, what has been awarded by the Tribunal is additional privilege leave for 7 days in the garb of sick leave. As against this, the Tribunal has examined the financial capacity of the two companies in question, and has given adequate rea sons for holding that they are in good financial position and can bear the additional burden of sickness leave. Learned coun sel for the appellants have invited our attention to the case between the Textile Labour Association |