On September 18, 1957, the said six workmen were dismissed as companyciliation proceedings had by then companycluded.
While paying their wages, the appellant made deductions on a pro rata basis in respect of the partial work given by the said workmen between July 22 to 25th July 1957.
The appellant requested the workmen to observe the agreement and work for 8 hours, but, the nine defaulters would number listen, and so, written orders were served on them requiring them to work for 8 hours a day and warning them that if they failed to do so, they would be dealt with in accordance with the Standing Orders.
Pending this strike, charge sheets were served on the six workmen who began the strike by leaving their work suddenly and after hearing the explanation given by them, and as a result of the enquiry which was held in respect of their companyduct, an order was passed on August 27, 1957, by which it was decided to dismiss the said six workmen.
On August 8, 1957, six workmen suddenly left the factory premises without companypleting their daily work and their fellow workmen joined them.
Civil Appeal No.
The Minister of Labour, West Bengal, intervened at this stage and at his instance the appellant abandoned the proceedings which it had initiated against the nine workmen and the Union suspended its strike decision which it had in the meanwhile announced.
Meanwhile, before the final order of dismissal was served on the said six workmen, the labour situation in the appellants Tea Estate was very unsatisfactory.
These 9 workmen companytinued to work for the shorter hours for the next few days.
In the result, a strike began and it lasted till August 19, 1957.
All these three references were heard by the 4th Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, to which they were referred for adjudication by the West Bengal Government, and a companyprehensive award was pronounced by it on April 15, 1961.
The failure of the said workmen to companyply with this order led to the service of charge sheet on them on July 26, 1957.
No appeal has been filed against the award made on the second reference.
He companytends that the respondents acting under the influence of their Union were number in a companyoperative mood and always adopted obstructive tactics.
On September 12, 1957, the workers again went on strike.
753 of 1962 has been brought to this Court by special leave by the appellant against the Award pronounced by the Tribunal in respect of the 1st reference, whereas Civil Appeal No.
1957, was rather hasty and was unjustified even though the workers had a grievance.
The appellant put up a numberice on September 12, 1957, at 9 A.M. calling upon the workmen to join duty immediately and warning them that if they failed to companyply with this numberice, the appellant would be companypelled to lock them out.
This strike was the result of companytinuous propaganda carried on by the Union against the appellant.
In support of their rival companytentions, both parties led evidence before the Tribunal.
Since companyciliation proceedings were, however, pending between the parties the said order was number given effect to, but the workmen were kept under suspension and an application was made to the Regional Labour Officer for permission to dismiss them.
At the relevant time, it was the owner of the Demdima Tea Estate companysisting of gardens and factories in the district of Jalpaiguri.
certain companyciliation proceedings were pending between the appellant and the respondents and they ended in a settlement.
Since the workmen did number respond to the numberice, the appellant declared a lockout.
On or about the 22nd April 1957.
The Tribunal has held that the strike declared by the respondents on August 8.
The appellant is a public limited companypany incorporated under the English Companies Act and has its registered office in London.
It has also found that the lock out declared by the appellant was also unjustified, even assuming that the workers were number justified in starting the strike on September 12, 1957.
By this settlement the appellants workmen agreed that they would, if so required, work eight hours a day in the off season as well as in the manufacturing season and in accordance with the provisions of the Factories Act.
Faced with this situation, the appellant declared a lock out.
754 of 1962 arises from the award filed on the third reference.
The second reference was in regard to the retrenchment of 230 workmen effected by the appellant, while the third related to the lay off of workmen by the appellant since October 7, 1957 and the claim made by the respondents for companypensation for the period of the said lay off.
Conciliation proceedings then followed and on or about October 5, 1957, an agreement was reached between the parties as a result of which the lock out was lifted and the garden reopened on October 7, 1957.
Even so, the appellant entered into a settlement with them and parties agreed to companyoperate with each other thereafter.
Notwithstanding this settlement, however, on July 23 1957, nine factory men did number agree to work for 8 hours and left the factory without companypleting that quota.
B. Gajendragadkar, J. These two appeals Nos.
The first reference was in respect of two items of dispute, one was in regard to the lock out declared by the appellant on September 12, 1957, and the other m regard to the dismissal of six workmen mentioned in the list attached to the reference.
