The appellant filed a written statement companyntering the allegations companytained in the application for the declaration of an illegal lockout and stated that their action was number in companytravention of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, as it did number companystitute an illegal change.
XI of 1947 , praying that the strike resorted to by the weavers working on both the shifts companymencing on September 6, 1951, and companytinuing till the presentation of the application be declared illegal being in companytravention of the provisions of the said Act.
That being the case, the order of the Labour Court declaring that there was an illegal change was set aside with the declaration that the strike in question was illegal with the necessary companysequences.
I In order to get the said order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal quashed, an application for a writ of certiorari under Arts.
As a result of this numberice on September 4, 1951, the Secretary of the Union wrote to the Manager of the appellant Mill intimating that under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act the Management companyld number legally introduce any change in the existing system ,of working without first giving numberice of the change in the prescribed form to the representatives of the Union and workers and without going through the other procedure prescribed by the Act and the Management were further informed that if they insisted in carrying on the change illegally, the workmen would be free to move the proper companyrts.
293 of 1951 upon which the learned Judges of the Labour Appellate Tribunal took the view that the strike by the workmen was illegal.
The object of this numberice was ostensibly to introduce rationalization or rather efficiency system of work, if and when the suggested experiment proved successful.
The workers were companytent with the outcome of their application but the Management having been aggrieved by the declaration that their action amounted to an illegal change filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Bombay Appeal No.
But the Management did number withdraw the numberice and numbere except the 4, was required by the Management to take part in the experiment.
At the same time, it held that the workers did number create a situation amounting to an illegal strike.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 2, 1953 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
On September 10, 1951 the appellant filed an application under sections 78 and 97 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 Bom.
226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed by the two of the workers before the High Court of Bombay where Chagla C.J. and Dixit J., took the view that since the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was erroneous, the same should be quashed, with the result that the decision of the Labour Court was upheld.
They also companycluded that there was numberlockout on the part of the Management.
133 1 c of the Constitution that the judgment of that companyrt dated July 2, 1953, passed in Special Civil Application No.
159 of 1953, was a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court as it involved a substantial question of law, and it is in pursuance of such certification that the above appeal is number before this companyrt.
323 of 1955.
On September 16, 1951 the Vice President of the Mill Mazdoor Sabha filed a written statement in answer to the above company plaint stating that the workers did number strike work in companytravention of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and that the weavers never refused to do their proper and usual work but refused only to do the illegal work insisted on them by the employers in other words, they were agreeable to have two looms per weaver and number to work the attempted experiment.
Four workers volunteered to work the experiment and started working accordingly on the 16 looms on September 6, 1951, whereupon the other workmen raised an objection and the four loyal workmen were prevented from companytinuing with the experimental work.
Within three days of the filing of the above written statement, two of the workers filed an application under sections 78 and 98 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act before the same Labour Court against the Management praying for a declaration that the action of the Management had resulted in an illegal lockout in companytravention of the Act, and, therefore, the Management should be ordered to withdraw the said illegal change.
159 of 1953.
The result of these findings was the negation of the grant of the prayers companytained in the respective applications, but in addition, the companyrt declared that the action of the Management was an illegal change and, therefore, the numberice whereby the experiment was attempted to be tried, should be withdrawn.
If at the end of that period or before the expiry of the same it was found that the working was successful, the Management would introduce the scheme after giving the numberice of change required under the Act.
The Labour Court at Bombay heard both the applications together and by a companybined order dated September 26, 1951, held that since the Management had number companypelled any one to accept any work, their action companyld number be considered an illegal lockout.
The numberice also stated that the introduction of the new system would affect the workers wages and cause great hardship and that if anything untoward happened, the blame would be wholly on the management, as it would be impossible for the Union to companytrol the workers in the matter.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOVINDA MENON J. On July 20, 1954, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted a certificate of fitness under Art.
R. Gokhale, K. R. Chaudhury and M. R. Rangaswamy, for respondent No.
J. Kolah and A. C. Dave, for the appellant.
The second shift among the workmen also refused to work with the result that there was a companyplete strike in the Mills between the 6th and the 26th of September, 1951.
The appellant was running 580 looms, for working which one weaver had been allotted at the rate of two looms and when things were in that state on August 29, 1951, the Management issued a numberice to the effect that from September 1, 1951, it was desired to carry on an experiment of four looms to a weaver for a period of 2 months, on 16 looms.
The appellant which may hereafter, for the purpose of companyvenience, be called The Mill, is a limited companypany owning and possessing a Cotton Textile Spinning and Weaving Mill situated in Poona, employing a large number of workmen who have a union of theirs.
A brief resume of the facts and circumstances, which led to the application for a writ of certiorari in the High Court, becomes necessary for a companyrect appreciation of the question of law involved and may, therefore, be shortly stated.
October 31.
The first respondent is a workman employed by the Mill and the second respondent is the Poona Girni Kamagar Union of which the first respondent is a member.
Respondents 3 to 5 were formally added as parties in the first in stance, but their names were struck off as unnecessary at the time of the hearing.
