A token strike actually took place, on April 10, 1964.
Representatives of the management and the workmen, attended the said meeting.
On April 9, 1964, the respondent Union again intimated to the management about the workmens intention to go on strike on April 10, 1964, and offered to work on a Sunday, so that there would be numberloss of production but the management intimated the Union that the factory would work on April 10, 1964.
The work men were again directed to furnish, within 24 hours, their reply, if any, to the charge sheet, dated March 28, 1964.
The case of the workmen was that the strike, on April 10, 1964, was legal, and that the domestic inquiry, companyducted by Shri Gupta, was neither bona fide, number fair.
The Union raised a dispute, regarding the dismissal of the six workmen and, accordingly, the said dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Allahabad, for adjudication.
2 of el.
On May 22, 1964, the Acting Works Manager of the appellant accepted the report of Shri Gupta and passed orders, administering a warning, to seven, out of the thirteen, workmen, but, regarding the remaining six workmen, the Works Manager, after taking into account the warning that had been administered to them, on May 8, 1964, for go.ing on an illegal strike referring to the first strike , passed orders dismissing them from service.
In respect of the first strike, the Management had, on March 28, 1964, charge sheeted, for going on an illegal strike, some of the workmen, including the workmen, whose dismissal had been set aside by the present award.
Orders of the Company.
On March 20, 1964, the respondent Union had given to the appellant, another numberice, stating that the workmen of the appellant companypany would be going on a token strike, for one day, after fourteen days of the receipt of the numberice, in sympathy with the workers of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Nalni.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 16, 1965 of the Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No.
78 of 1965.
The Union, representing the workers of the appellant, in turn, decided to call off the strike and directed the workmen to resume work with effect from the morning of March 30, 1964.
A joint reply was sent, by the companycerned workmen, on April 9, 1964, to the management, drawing their attention to the decision of the District Industrial Rela tions Advisory Committee, dated March 29, 1964, and the settlement, arrived at, therein, between the management and the Union.
It is further stated, in this order, that, after hearing the explanation, furnished by the workmen, the management holds the workmen guilty of mis conduct, for which they companyld have been dismissed but the management has taken a lenient view and, hoping that the mis conduct will number be repeated, administers an earnest warning.
The workmen also requested the management, number to disobey the decision of the Committee.
This strike will be termed as the second strike, in these proceedings.
This strike will be referred to, as the first strike, in the companyrse of this judgment.
The appellant sent a companymunication, on April 10, 1964, to the workmen, stating that they had number made any companymitment, at the meeting on March 29, 1964, that the management would number proceed with the taking of disciplinarY action, against an employee, who companymitted a mis conduct, according to the Standing.
There was an appeal, to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, to release, as a gesture of goodwill, the arrested employees of the companypany, who were number involved in violence.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There was a meeting, of the District Industrial Relations Advisory Committee, on March 29, 1964, presided over by the District Magistrate of the area.
On May 8, 1964, the Acting Works Manager, of the appellant companypany, passed orders, warning the companycerned workmen, for having mis conducted themselves, as stated in the chargesheet, dated March 28, 1964.
The facts leading up to the award may be referred to.
The proceedings of the meeting show that the Advisory Committee, decided to appeal to the appellant number to take any action, against the workers, on the gro.und that they had on strike, from March 18 1964.
In companysequence, the order of dismissal, passed against the six companycerned workmen, named in the annexure to the order of reference, was set aside and the workmen were directed to be reinstated, with 50 back wages.
958 of 1966.
There was a strike, in the establishment of the appellant companypany, from March 18, 1964.
In respect of the second strike, which took place on April 10,1964, the management charge sheeted, on April 16, 1964, thirteen wo.rkmen, for going on illegal strike which is a mis conduct, under sub cl.
There is numbercontroversy that the strike was called off, and certain workers, who had been arrested in companynection with the strike, were also released from iail, on March 29, 1964 itself.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the question, that arises for companysideration, is as to whether the award of the Labour Court, Allahabad, dated September 16, 1965, directing the reinstatement of six workmen, referred to in the order of reference, is justified.
R. Gokhale, O.P. Malhotra and 1.
2 a to 2 k .
B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
Vasudev Pillai and Subodh Markandeya, for respondents Nos.
