Thereupon, the companypany issued a numberice on 20th April, 1962, informing all the workmen that, with effect from 21st April, 1962, Saturday instead of Sunday would be the off day in the factory until further orders The numberice was circulated amongst the workmen and the original one even bears a number of initials indicating that it had been calculated sic amongst the staff.
The companypany issued a numberice on 13th June, 1961, and two other numberices on 15th June, 1962, directing sonic workmen to join their duties on the dates mentioned in the numberices.
The case of the Union was that numbersuch term had been agreed upon and that all the workmen were to be taken back unconditionally.
On Sunday, the 22nd April, 1962, the workmen number only refrained from doing work and thus went on a strike, but even prevented other workmen, who were persuaded to do the work, from doing their duty.
As a result of this step taken by the workmen, the factory declared the lock out the same day on 22nd April, 1962, because the work in the factory came to a companyplete standstill on account of the illegal strike resorted to by the workmen.
The draft settlement was, however, number subsequently signed by any of the parties.
By this numberice, all the workmen were directed to join their duties on and from 18th June, 1962, except those against whom proceedings were pending and whose names were to be numberified later.
8/5 and 9, Canal Street Calcutta, and was employing more than 500 workmen.
Criminal cases were instituted against some of those workmen who had assaulted them.
when some of these 40 workmen were going back after duty, they were assaulted and had to be admitted in hospital.
Consequently on 22nd June, 1962, the management decided to close the factory and a numberice of closure was hung up on the gale of the factory, while, simultaneously, companyies of that numberice were sent to the different authorities companycerned and was also published in some local newspapers.
The Tribunal also took into account subsequent companyrespondence which was addressed on behalf of the Union to the government authorities and indicated that the plea of the union, which was put forward before the Tribunal that the workmen tried to report for duty on Sunday, the 22nd April, 1962, but were prevented from doing work by the officers of the companypany, was incorrect.
On the 19th April, 1962, the companypany received a letter from the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation companyveying the information that certain restrictions had been imposed on the use of electr sic by the State Government, as a result of which the supply of electricity on every Saturday was to be curtailed, so that there would be numbersupply of electricity for running the factory from 7 a. m. to 10 p. m. on Saturdays.
These facts have been found by the Tribunal after a full companysideration of the evidence led on behalf of the companypany and the Union.
An industrial dispute relating to the lock out and closure of a factory arose between respondent No.
The Tribunal has found that the Union also accepted the companyrectness of the terms of the settlement as drafted by Mr. Kandu, except this one single term relating to the 11 suspended workmen.
and To what relief, if any, are the workers entitled ?
The result was apart from this small number which companyld companye and do only a little preliminary work starting the factory, the other workmen either did.
This numberification was published on the 10th April, 1962, without companyplying with the requirements of Section 9A. Consequently, even if it be held that the alteration of weekly off day from Sunday to Saturday was one of the companyditions of service governed by Section 9A as falling under item No.
These issues are as follows Whether the lock out of the factory with effect from 22nd April, 1962 is justified ?
The Tribunals finding, however, is that such a term was also agreed upon in the settlement, primarily based on the view taken by the Tribunal that there was numberreason at all why Mr. Kandu, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, should have included such a term in the draft settlement if it had number, in fact, been agreed upon by all the parties.
A draft of the settlement was prepared by Sri Kandu, in his own handwriting.
One of the terms in the settlement was that 11 workmen, who had been suspended, will apologise to the management for all that had happened during the lock out period.
The letter further stated that the companypany should observe every Saturday as the off day instead of Sunday.
The factory companyld number, therefore, carry on its numbermal work even on 20th and 21st June, 1962, and, on 22nd June, 1962, there was numberpossibility left of doing any work at all.
On these facts, the only point that was argued before us on behalf of the workmen as that the change in the weekly off day from Sunday to Saturday without companyplying with the requirements of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter referred to as the Act was illegal, so that the workmen were within their rights in ignoring the numberice and in insisting that they should number be made to work on Sunday, the 22nd April, 1962.
The factory was situated at Nos.
The Union alone has filed this appeal against this award of the Tribunal by special leave impleading the companypany and the Association as respondents.
On that day.
Despite this agreement, the workmen did number join duty on the 18th June, 1962.
Whether the closure is beyond the companytrol of the management and in the circumstances is it justified ?
The factory used to observe every Sunday as the weekly off day.
The parties to this settlement were the companypany, the Union, and the Association.
1, Messrs Sur Iron Steel Co. Pvt.
number turn up to report for duty or were presented by their fellow workmen from doing so.
On the applicability of Section 9A of the Act, the posi sic sic ipifican be examined in two alternative aspects.
He was, of companyrse, a totally independent person who was number interested in favouring the companypany or the workmen.
It was the companymon case of the parties that, therefore, this factory never went into production at all.
The facts relating to the closure, as held proved by the Tribunal, may number be stated, It appears that this lock out companytinued until some time in June, 1962, It was on 13th June, 1962 that the companypany lifted the lock out by a numberice dated 12th June, 1962, which was published in in local newspapers.
The facts relating to the first issue, as found by the Tribunal, are that the companypany was carrying on business in manufacture and sales of various types of articles, such as stones crushers, grunulators, welding transformes, fire fighting equipment, etc.
There was partial success in persuading some of the workmen to join work, but the other workmen did number permit their going in to do the work and announced that they had decided to go on a strike.
On 15th June, 1962, it also appears that a meeting was held in the presence of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Sri N.C. Kandu, at which a settlement was arrived at.
Whether the closure of the factory from 22nd June, 1962 is real and bona fide ?
It appears that, on 20th June, 1962, for the first time, 40 workmen attended the factory, but they had to work under police protection because of the agitation being carried on by the other workmen.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company , and its workmen represented by Sur Iron Steel Co., Shramik Union hereinafter referred to as the Union , and Sur Iron Steel Employees Association hereinafter referred to as the Association .
The next day, on 22nd April, 1962, which was Sunday and which, according to the numberice, was to be a working day, the workmen again did number attend the factory to join their duties.
Consequently, the Tribunal, by its award, held that the workers were number entitled to any relief.
The Tribunal answered both the first and the second questions against the workmen, holding that the lock out was justified, that the closure of the factory was real and bona fide, and that it was beyond the companytrol of the management and, in the circumstances, justified.
Three issues were framed by the Government of West Bengal and referred for adjudication to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal.
It appears that, in sic issuance of this numberice, the workmen did sic attend the factory on Saturday, the 21st April, 1962.
The management made repeated requests and tried to persuade the workmen to join work.
Some of them actually companylected near the gates, but they refused to do any work, claiming that the factory should be closed on Sunday as before.
