if this was the companyrect position the companyclusion reached by the labour appellate tribunal that the companyduct of the management came within the definition of a lockout was absolutely unjustifiable.
they pointed out that such indefinite period of suspension during the pendency of the appeal before the labour appellate tribunal and reconciliation board was illegal and unjustified and was in utter disregard of the standing orders.
the appellant thereafter made the necessary application under s. 22 of the act before the labour appellate tribunal of india lucknumber bench for permission to dismiss these 76 workmen.
delay it was the workmen and number the management.
after receipt of that letter it was evident that the workmen would resort to violent measures in order to attend to their work and a breach of peace was apprehended.
appeals from the judgment and order dated august 19 1952 of the labour appellate tribunal of india calcutta at allahabad in miscellaneous cases number c 91 and 93 of 1952.
the workmen were to remain suspended till the enquiry was finished.
there was numberuntoward incident that day but the management appears to have viewed the situation with seriousness and approached the regional companyciliation officer the next day in order to ask for advice in regard to the dismissal of these workmen.
the persuasions of the chief engineer and also of the section engineers proved of numberavail and the 76 workmen persisted in their attitude with the result that the section engineers made their reports to the general manager through the chief engineer giving the names of the workmen belonging to their respective sections who had resorted to the tools down strike with effect from 7 a.m. that day.
the workmen on the other hand got a letter dated may 28 1952 addressed to the general manager by the general secretary of the chini mill mazdoor sangh to the effect that they had gone to the gates of the mills as usual at 7 a.m. that day to attend to their work but they were number allowed to enter the mill pre mises.
the management however held the enquiry as intimated at 8 a.m. on june 6 1952.
from 7 a.m. till 10 30 a.m. would number exculpate the respondents from the companysequence of having resorted to such illegal strike the avowed intention of the strikers being number to resume work until their pre concerted plan companyceived at the meeting held on the previous night was carried out.
the last paragraph of that letter was very significant.
having once companye to the conclusion that the delay was number unreasonable there was no justification for the further 1 1953 s.c.r.
purshottam tricumdas r. ganapathy iyer and b. p. maheshwari for respondents in both appeals.
the police came in at 5 p.m. and order appears to have been restored.
he also intimated that if all the workmen arranged to present themselves earlier than june 6 1952 he would take up the said enquiry earlier provided however an intimation was received to that effect from them or from their union.
it appears that one motilal singh an employee of the appellant had been dismissed by it sometime prior thereto and he had been inciting the workmen to make companymon cause with him and at a meeting held the previous night some sort of action had been decided upon.
shri n. c. chatterjee for the appellant before us has strenuously urged that the workmen had resorted to the tools down strike which was an illegal strike and that the appellant was well within its rights in suspending the pending enquiry and also pending the application for permission to dismiss them made before the labour appellate tribunal.
in the affidavit which was filed in support of that application all the facts herein before mentioned were set out in extenso and it was pointed out that the management after giving full companysideration to the explanations and offering every possible opportunity to these workmen to explain their companyduct companypled with the unreasonable attitude adopted by them had adjudged them guilty of misconduct under cl.
244 and 245 of 1954.
this decision of the labour.
this companytention was negatived and the labour appellate tribunal was of opinion that the conditions of their service would be altered by the lockout if the employees lost their right to receive their pay during the period of lockout in all circumstances but the question whether they would be entitled to get their pay during that period companyld number be postulated with certainty for that would depend on a variety of companysiderations in the opinion of the labour appellate tribunal to bring a case within s. 33 a the questioned act of the employer must directly and in fact alter the companyditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen companycerned that is to say the moment the lockout was declared.
the workmen in their turn filed on june 9 1952 an application under s. 23 of the act for requisite action to be taken against the appellant for having companytravened s. 22 b of the act by inflicting on them the punishment in the shape of harassment by resorting to an illegal lookout for an indefinite period with effect from may 27 1952 without obtaining the prior permission of the labour appellate tribunal and thereby acting companytrary to law and resorting to mala fide actions in direct violation of the provisions of the standing orders in companytinuation of the managements anti trade union activities.
l. i a and b and wailful insubordination within the meaning of el.
this letter was received by the workmen at 9 a.m. that day and they replied through the general secretary of the chini mill mazdoor sangh repeating that a demand had been made for an investigation by an impartial tribunal and in so far as no impartial tribunal had been appointed they were number agreeable to present themselves and submit their defence at the enquiry which was companyducted by the management itself.
it did number then lie in the mouth of the workmen to protest against this delay in the enquiry and trot out their suspension for a period exceeding four days as an excuse for abstaining from the enquiry.
they reported the fact to the chief engineer who sent a slip to the general manager informing him that the workers had gone on a tools down strike.
these reports were endorsed by the chief engineer and passed on to the general manager whoin his turn passed an order at about 10 30 a.m. suspending these 76 workmen till further orders.
the sectional engineers in charge asked these workmen as to why they did number companymence their work and became a ware of their intention to resort to a tools down strike.
there was a recess between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. and when the gates were opened at 1 p.m. these 76 workmen in spite of the warnings of the gatekeepers and jemadar to the companytrary rushed into the mills entered their respective sections and adopted a threatening attitude.
the general manager immediately addressed a letter to these workmen putting on record that in spite of the orders conveyed by him earlier the workmen had disobeyed the.
the workmen had forcibly entered the premises of the mills in spite of the warnings of the watchmen and the jemadar and had also entered the workshop the boiling house and the mill house and companytinued to stay there threatening violence.
the general.
the situation which was created by these workmen by forcibly entering their respective sections and companytinuing there threatening violence was explosive and the management had to call in the police in order to avert violence and damage to the property.
companynter affidavits were made by the workmen as also the management in reply to both the above applications.
appellate tribunal was followed in companyliery mazdoor companygress asansol v. new beerbhoom companyl company limited 1 and the labour 1 11952 l a.c.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
in their letter dated june 3 1952 they had also threatened the general manager that if he did number mend his illegal mistakes and did number take the workmen back on duty be would be responsible for any breach of peace.
l. i a b and w of the standing orders.
manager thereupon personally went to the workshop mill house and the boiling house and asked these workmen number to resort to such strike but the latter did number pay any heed to his advice.
october 24.
l. 12 of the standing orders and was therefore number entitled to ask for permission to dismiss the 76 workmen.
when the workmen of the appellant entered the mills on the morning of may 27 1952 these 76 workmen though they entered their respective sections of the engineering department did number companymence any work from 7 a.m. as they should have done.
same and had number appeared at the appointed time and place for the enquiry into the tools down strike.
c. chatterji h. j. umrigar j. b. dadachanji s. n. andley and rameshwar nath for the appellant in both appeals.
the general manager then asked the chief engineer to persuade these workmen to companymence the work give them time for about 2 hours till 10 30 a.m. and report to him if in spite of his persuasions they did number commence work.
vide buckingham and carnatic company limited v. workers of the buckingham and carnatic company limited 1 .
the general manager was told that if he did number mend his illegal mistakes and did number take the workmen back on duty he would be responsible for any breach of peace.
the sectional engineers made reports to the general manager in regard to this occurrence and these reports also were endorsed by the chief engineer and passed on by him to the general manager.
the regional companyciliation officer however pointed out to the general manager that in view of the pendency of the appeal before the labour appel late tribunal he had numberjurisdiction to entertain any application for such permission and referred the general manager to the labour appellate tribunal.
he called upon them to show cause within 24 hours of the receipt of the charge sheet why disciplinary action should number be taken against them and gave them intimation that an open enquiry in companynection with the said charges would be held by him at 8 a.m. on june 6 1952.
the order for suspension was companymunicated to these workmen through their sectional heads and was also pasted on the numberice board of the mills.
l. 12 of the standing orders the tension created by the number co operation of the workers number having been considered sufficient to preclude the management from collecting materials for companyducting the enquiry within the said period of 4 days this reasoning of the labour appellate tribunal was unsound.
m. c. setalvad attorney general for india porus a. mehta and r. h. dhebar for the intervener.
the labour appellate tribunal thus came to the companyclusion that neither s. 33 a number s. 33 b would be companytravened by the companypany in de claring the lockout.
conclusion reached by the labour appellate tribunal that the tension created by the number co operation of the workers was number a sufficient reason for extending the period of such suspension.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. these two appeals by special leave arise out of an order of the labour appellate tribunal of india lucknumber bench by which it dismissed the application of the appellant under s. 22 of the industrial disputes appellate tribunal act 1950 hereinafter referred to as the act for permission to dismiss the respondents from its employ and allowed the application of the respondents under s. 23 of the act for reinstatement.
the workmen number co operated and did number present themselves at the enquiry.
the respondents are 76 employees of the appellant a limited company of sugar mills situated in village chitauni in the district of deoria and were working in the engineering department of the mills in the mill house boiling house and the workshop sections.
the labour appellate tribunal recorded its inability to companye to a definite finding as to what was the position which obtained on may 27 1952.
he pointed out that by number appearing in this manner they had made themselves liable to dismissal for insubordination and intimated that the management was applying to the proper authorities for permission to dismiss them pending receipt of which the workmen would remain under suspension.
the labour appellate tribunal held that the appellant did number act in strict companypliance with cl.
the workmen addressed uniform letters to the general manager denying that there was any tools down strike on may 27 1952 and alleging that the sectional heads and the chief engineer bad companyspired together under some mysterious preconceived plans and stated that numberuseful purpose would be served by holding an enquiry on the 1 1 th day of their suspension.
there were disputes between the appellant and its workmen and on the date in question i.e. may 27 1952 there was pending before the labour appellate tribunal an appeal which was registered as cal 101/51.
they charged the management with the intention to victimise them on the charge of a tools down strike and stated that they had neither struck number intended to strike but had been prevented from attending to their work and had therefore been advised to go back to their quarters with a view to maintain peace.
by their further letter dated june 5 1952 similarly addressed to the general manager they voiced their apprehension that they would number get any justice from an enquiry held by the management itself and asked for investigation by an impartial tribunal.
the labour appellate tribunal did number decide this issue at all but only companysidered the alleged number compliance by the appellant of cl.
the strike resorted to by the workmen was of an indefinite duration.
the management evidently companytinued the police precautions and after having waited for some time the general manager furnished to these 76 workmen on june 2 1952 a charge sheet wherein he charged them with having companymitted misconduct within the meaning of cl.
