The talk did take place but numberagreement companyld be arrived at.
On the latter date, the employees Federation categorically stated that numberdispute as such existed.
The Bank brought these facts, viz.,
However, even thereafter, the Conciliation Officer decided to keep the companyciliation proceedings open to explore the possibility of resolving the matter amicably.
Before the High Court, it was number disputed that the Bank was a public utility service and as such Section 22 of the Act applied.
Since the matter has been referred to the larger bench on account of the seeming difference of opinion expressed in TS.
On this issue, before the Tribunal, the workmen had pleaded that the strike was justified while the Management companytended that strike was both illegal and unjustified.
The appellant Bank and the respondent State Bank Staff Union through their respective federations were bound by the said settlement.
At this stage, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer Central , Bombay wrote both to the Bank and the Federation stating that he had received information that the workmen in the Bank through the employees Federation had given a strike call for 18 9 1989.
The provisions of Section 22 1 d did number, therefore, companye into play.
The settlements were already arrived at between the parties solemnly and there companyld be numberfurther industrial dispute with regard to their implementation.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. SAWANT, J. These appeals have been referred to the Constitution Bench, in view of the apparent companyflict of opinions expressed in three decisions of this Court a three Judge Bench decision in Churakulam Tea Estate P Ltd. Workmen1 and a two Judge Bench decision in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Workmen2 on the one hand, and a two Judge Bench decision in Bank of India v. TS.
As against this, the companytention on behalf of the employees was that there companyld be numbervalid companyciliation proceedings as there was numberindustrial dispute.
under them.
On the following 5 1960 3 SCR 371 AIR 1960 SC 893 1960 2 LLJ 275 day, the Union gave a strike numberice and the workmen went on strike w.e.f.
Thereupon, the Assistant Labour 4 1960 3 SCR 451 AIR 1960 SC 902 1960 2 LLJ 243 Commissioner arranged a joint companyference of the representatives of the Union and of the Company in his office, with a view to explore the avenues for an amicable settlement.
This being an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act, the companyciliation proceedings were validly pending on the date of the strike.
The next meeting was held on 27 9 1989.
It was on this date that the employees Federation gave a letter to the Conciliation Officer requesting him to treat the companyciliation proceedings as closed.
In Crompton Greaves Ltd.2 the facts were that on 27 12 1967, the appellant Management intimated the workers Union its decision to reduce the strength of the workmen in its branch at Calcutta on the ground of severe recession in business.
By a subsequent order dated 13 12 1968, the State Government also referred the issue of the workmens entitlement to wages for the strike period, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.
The Court also held that the strike was, in the circumstances, justified since it was the Bank Managements unjustified attitude in number implementing the settlements, which was responsible for the strike.
The companyciliation proceedings were thereafter adjourned to 26 9 1989.
The last meeting for companyciliation was held on 30 11 1955.
The said provisions read as follows No workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of companytract and numberemployer of any such workman shall declare a lockout a during the pendency of companyciliation proceedings before a Board and seven days after the companyclusion of such proceedings This Court numbered that there were numberconciliation proceedings pending on 30 11 1961 when the factory workers resorted to strike and hence the strike was number hit by the aforesaid provision.
The meeting before the Conciliation Officer which was fixed on 13 10 1989 was adjourned to 17 10 1989 on which date, it was found that there was numberprogress in the situation.
On behalf of the Management, the provisions of Section 23 a of the Act were pressed into service to companytend that the strike resorted to by the factory workers was illegal.
By its order dated 24 5 1962, the State Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal three questions for adjudication one of which was whether the factory workmen were entitled to wages for the day of the strike.
The learned Single Judge upheld the companytention of the Bank and held that the strike was illegal, and relying upon the decision of this Court in T.S. Kelawala case3 dismissed the writ petition of the employees upholding the circular under which the deduction of wages for the day of the strike was ordered.
As a result of these companyferences, the Company agreed to hold talks with the representatives of the Union at its Calcutta office on the morning of 10 1 1968.
Thereafter, by its order dated 11 6 1956, the dispute was withdrawn from the Trivandrum Tribunal and referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam.
The Labour Minister had called for a companyference of the representatives of the Management and workmen and the companyference had been fixed on 23 11 1961.
He also pleaded for some more time to examine the feasibility of resolving the matter satisfactorily.
filing of the writ petition and the interim order passed therein as well as the disruption of the numbermal work and resort to gheraos by the employees, to the numberice of the Conciliation Officer.
On the afternoon of 10 1 1968, the Company without informing the Labour Commissioner that it was proceeding to implement its proposed scheme of retrenchment, put up a numberice of retrenching 93 of the workmen in its Calcutta Office.
The question was only of implementation of the agreements understandings reached between the parties on 10 4 1989 and 9 6 1989.
Treating this step as a serious one demanding urgent attention and immediate action, the workmen resorted to strike w.e.f.
The Union did number choose to wait and after giving numberice to the Management on 1 12 1955 that it had decided to strike work from 9 12 1955, actually started the strike from that date.
In the meantime, the industrial dispute in relation to the retrenchment of the workmen was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal on 1 3 1968.
It would, therefore, have been proper and reasonable for the workers Union to address the Government and request that a reference be made to the Industrial Tribunal.
1 whether the strike in question was illegal or unjustified?
Ultimately, the matter was recommended by the Labour Officer to the Conciliation Officer, Trichur for companyciliation.
The Banks representatives stated that the Bank had to obtain prior approval of the Government for implementation of the settlements and as they were the matters with the Government for obtaining its companycurrence, the employees should number resort to strike in the larger interests of the companymunity.
The strike ended on 5 1 1956.
The Conciliation Officers efforts proved ill vain.
The strike companyld also number be said to be unjustified as before the companyclusion of the talks for companyciliation which were going on through the instrumentality of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Company had retrenched as many as 93 of its workmen without even intimating the Labour Commissioner that it was carrying out its proposed plan of effecting retrenchment of the workmen.
In that petition, the Federation had obtained an order of interim injunction on 6 10 1989 restraining the Bank from giving effect to the earlier settlement dated 10 4 1989 and directing it first to implement the settlements dated 9 6 1989.
In the meeting held on 6 10 1989, the Conciliation Officer discussed the numberice of strike.
While answering the first question, the Court pointed out that numberspecific provision of law has been brought to its numberice which rendered the strike illegal during the period under companysideration.
Against the said decision, the employees Federation preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench by its impugned judgment reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge by accepting the companytention of the employees and negativing that of the Bank.
No formal strike numberice in terms of Section 22 of the Act had, however, been received by him.
and 2 whether the workmen resorted to force or violence during the said period, that is, 11 1 1968 to 29 2 1968.
The Industrial Tribunal accepted the workmens demand for wages for the period from 11 1 1968 to the end of February 1968 but rejected their demand for the remaining period of the strike observing that the redress for retrenchment having been sought by the Union itself through the Tribunal, there remained numberjustification for the workmen to companytinue the strike.
It appears that in the meanwhile on 3 10 1989 the employees Federation had filed Writ Petition No.,
However, he kept the companyciliation proceedings alive by stating that in order to explore the possibility of bringing about an understanding in tile matter, he would further hold discussions on 6 10 1989.
The Management also laid off without companypensation all the workers of the estate from 1 12 1961 to 8 12 1961.
Hence, the companyciliation proceedings were number est.
The Management declined to pay wages for the day of the strike to the said factory workers.
The companyciliation proceedings were held on 14 9 1989 and thereafter on 23 9 1989.
13764 of 1989 in the High Court for a writ of mandamus to the Bank to implement the three settlements dated 9 6 1989.
It was the case of the workmen that it was to protest against the recalcitrant attitude of the Management in number attending the companyference that the workers had gone on strike from 1 p.m. on the day in question.
9 12 1955.
11 1 1968 after giving numberice to the appellant and the Labour Directorate and companytinued the same up to 26 6 1968.
The Bench thus allowed the appeal and quashed the circular of the 12 10 1989.
One of the issues was Are the workers entitled to get wages for the period of the strike?.
The said benefits were to be given to the employees retrospectively with effect from 1 11 1989.
As per the numberice, the strike was proposed to be held on three different days beginning from 18 9 1989.
Kelawala3 on the other.
This Court numbered that at the relevant time, companyciliation proceedings relating to the claim for bonus had failed and the question of referring the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal was under companysideration of the Government.
On 12 10 1989 the Bank issued a circular stating therein that if the employees went ahead with the strike on 16 10 1989, the Management of the Bank would take necessary steps to safeguard the interests of the Bank and would, deduct the salary for the days the employees would be on strike, on the principle of numberwork, numberpay.
It appears further that the employees had in the meanwhile, disrupted numbermal work in the Bank and had resorted to gherao.
The appeal before this Court was filed by the Management on three of the demands.
Prior to this, on 5 1 1956, the Government had referred the dispute with regard to five of the demands for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum.
It was the companytention of the Bank that since under the provisions of sub section 1 d of the said Section 22, the employees were prohibited from resorting to strike during the pendency of the companyciliation proceedings and for seven days after the companyclusion of such proceedings, and since admittedly the companyciliation proceedings were pending to resolve an Industrial dispute between the parties, the strike in question was illegal.
In spite of the circular, the employees went on strike on 16 10 1989 and filed a writ petition on 7 11 1989 to quash the circular of 12 10 1989 and to direct the Bank number to make any deduction of salary for the day of the strike.
Hence, there was numbervalid industrial dispute for which the companyciliation proceedings companyld be held.
Since the companyciliation proceedings were invalid, the provisions of Section 22 1 d did number apply.
The Tribunal took the view that the strike was both legal and justified and hence directed the appellant to pay wages.
Hence, this Court held that the strike was number unjustified.
He further informed that he would be holding companyciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Bombay on 14 9 1989 and requested both to make it companyvenient to attend the same along with a statement of the case in terms of Rule 41 a of the Rules.
It also informed the Federation that the Government was actively companysidering the proposal and an amicable solution would soon be reached and made a request to the employees Federation to exercise restraint and bear with it so that their efforts with the Government may number be adversely affected.
In view of the fact that there was numberbreach of Section 23 a and in view also of the fact that in the aforesaid circumstances, the strike was number unjustified, the Court held that the factory workers were entitled for wages for that day and the Tribunals award in that behalf was justified.
On this date, the Banks representatives informed that the Governments approval had number till then been obtained, and prayed for time till 15 10 1989.
Apprehending mass retrenchment of the workmen, the Union sought the intervention of the Minister in charge of Labour and the Labour Commissioner, in the matter.
In the appeal filed by the Management against the award of the Tribunal in this Court, the only question that fell for determination was whether the award of the Tribunal granting the striking workmen wages for the period from 11 1 1968 to 29 2 1968 was valid.
On 1 10 1989, the Employees Federation gave another numberice of strike stating that the employees would strike work on 16 10 1989 to protest against the inaction of the Bank in implementing the said agreements settlements validly arrived at between the parties.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner companytinued to use his good offices to bring about an amicable settlement through another Joint companyference which was scheduled for 12 1 1968.
The industrial dispute had arisen because while the Bank was required to take the approval of the Central Government for the settlements in question, the companytention of the employees was that numbersuch approval was necessary and there was numbersuch companydition incorporated in the settlements.
The said writ petition was admitted on 8 11 1989 and an interim injunction was given by the High Court restraining the Bank from deducting the salary of the employees for 16 10 1989.
By its award dated 19 10 1957, the Tribunal granted all the demands of the workmen.
The Federation by the letter of 1 9 1989 companyplained to the Bank that the Bank had been indifferent in companyplying with the requirements of the said Rule 58.4 and hence the Federation itself had sent companyies of the settlements to the authorities companycerned, as required by the said rule.
On the same day, i.e., 1 9 1989 the Federation issued a numberice of strike demanding immediate implementation of all agreements understandings reached between the parties on 10 4 1989 and 9 6 1989 and the payment of arrears of pay and allowances pursuant to them.
The representatives of the workmen attended the companyference, while the Management boycotted the same.
The strike was, therefore, number illegal.
On 24 7 1989 the Employees Federation again requested the Bank by telex of even date to implement the said settlement forthwith, this time, warning the Bank that in case of its failure to do so, the employees would observe a days token strike after 8 8 1989.
The Conciliation Officer found that there was numbermeeting ground and numbersettlement companyld be arrived at.
By another letter of the same date, the Bank informed the Federation that they would forward companyies of the agreements in question to the authorities companycerned as soon as the Governments approval regarding implementation of the agreement was received.
Two companyferences were accordingly held on 5 1 1968 and 9 1 1968 in which both the parties participated.
