It was also held that the Respondents were number entitled to wages from 25 1 59 to 17 3 59.
It is alleged that from 25 1 59 till their names were struck off from the muster rolls, the Respondents sat outside the Mill gate and in spite of persuasion by the Labour Officer as well as by the management were genuinely desirous of their resuming work, they did number join duty and as a companysequence the management was companypelled to employ others in order to keep the mill going.
33A of the Act.
A Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the management against this decision but later it was dismissed as withdrawn.
But even then according to the report of the Conciliation Officer while the management was willing to employ the workmen, the Respondents were, number willing to resume work till the suspended workmen were also allowed to resume duty.
The management thereafter by letters dated 23 2 59, 4 3 59 and 17 3 59 informed the aforesaid Respondents that since they were numberlonger interested in the employment their names were struck off from the muster rolls.
Since the workmen came on strike company ciliation efforts were made but in spite of the persuasion of the Labour Officer, M.W. 2, the Labour Inspector M.W. 4 and by the management, Respondents 2 to 24 along with other did number report for duty although it is stated the Appellant was willing to employ them.
As the management was number agreeable to reinstate the Helper workman, the workers went on a lightening strike.
16 was companycerned, it was found that there were numberstanding orders in force applicable to the Appellant, as such it was number justified in dismissing him for absence without leave.
Thereafter the management seem to have dropped these charges and tried to persuade them to join work.
150 of 1958.
Ultimately on 26 8 59 the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Jullundur under Sec.
The Appellate Tribunal thereafter, heard the cases on merits, directed the reinstatement of 136 of the said employees, but refused to reinstate the rest whom it found guilty of issuing posters and circulars subversive of the credit of the Bank.
The Labour Court after receiving the statement of claim and recording the evidence on behalf of both the management and the workmen.
passed an Award on 31 10 61 which was published in the Gazette of 8 12 61.
33 of the Act and it dismissed the Appeal.
On the other hand management was always prepare to take them back and was requesting them through the Labour Inspector and the Labour Officer to end the strike and to resume duty but the workers went on insisting that the suspension orders passed on their company workmen should first be cancelled c that the workmen were adamant and as such there was numberalternative for the management except to terminate their services and take fresh hands who are still companytinuing in its service and d that numberevidence was produced by the workmen to prove that any of them ever requested the, management to resume duty or that the management had turned down any such request.
In so far as Respondent 16 is companycerned a numberice was served oil him ,on 4 3 59 in which it was mentioned that he was absent since 13 2 59 without any leave and that he should resume duty by 6 3 59.
It was held that under Sec.
None of the Respondents Nos.
Even if such companytravention was proved, the employer companyld still justify the impugned dismissal on merits and there was numberdifference in this regard between a reference under Sec.
It is also stated that during this period those workmen who wanted to join duty were permitted to do so and their services were entertained.
Against this Award of the Labour Court a Writ Petition was filed by the Respondents in the High Court of Punjab.
It may be mentioned here that out of these 31 workmen 8 workmen had resumed their duties and were numberlonger interested in the proceedings.
By this Award the claim of the workmen was rejected on the ground inter alia a that they had resorted to illegal strike b that the management did number in fact terminate the services of the workmen companycerned in the case and never meant to take action against them for having gone on strike.
If you will number companye to duty on 8th Feb. 59 the management would employ fresh hand in your stead as the management can ill afford to keep the work at a standstill.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 10, 1965, of the Labour Court, Jullundur in Reference No.
In so far as the validity of the action of the management in terminating the employment of the other Respondents is companycerned a great deal would depend on whether the management was able to justify its action before the Tribunal.
The workmen by their letters denied the allegations against them.
33A of the Act as companystrued by this Court the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was number limited to an enquiry as to the companytravention of Sec.
33 of the Act.
On Appeal the Labour Appellate Tribunal held that even though the strikes were illegal under Sec.
of India, waived its right to take penal action against its employees for joining the illegal strikes and that therefore, an enquiry should be held on additional evidence to decide the disputes on merits.
They would however only be entitled to half the back wages from 18 3 59 to the date on which the Award would become enforceable and from that date till the date of their reinstatement, Respondents Nos.
2 to 24 either acknowledged these numberices number sent a reply.
Certain charge sheets were served on the working on towards the end of January to which replies were given.
Both the Bank and the workers appealed to this Court.
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act , to determine whether the termination of services of 31 workmen whose names were mentioned therein was justified.
This Strike of yours is wholly unjustified.
10 of the Act and a dispute raised under Sec.
referred the question to the Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
23 b of the Act, the orders of dismissal passed by the Bank were numberless so under See.
157 of 1959.
On 19 3 59 a demand numberice on behalf of the workmen was served on the management as a result of which the companyciliation proceedings companymenced.
as well as Labour Inspector and Labour Officer, Amritsar.
In this view the case was remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh decision.
In spite of the various persuasive attempts by the management and the Labour Department, Amritsar, you have failed to resume work.
Thereafter numberices were sent to the Respondents 2 to 15 and 17 to 24 asking them to resume work by certain specified dates and when they did number resume work other numberices were sent requiring the said Respondents to show why their names should number be struck,off and asked them to submit their reply by a certain date.
Against the said Award this A peal has been filed by Special Leave.
A general strike followed resulting in a joint application by both the parties to the Govt.
Therefore the Respondent issued a general numberice to those workmen and individually to each workman numberifying that unless he recorded his willingness to discharge his duties faithfully and diligently so as to give a certain minimum output, he will be numberlonger employed and the willingness he was required to record was to be done within a certain time failing which he was numberified that he would be discharged without further numberice.
It is also the case of the management that the strike fizzled out after the striking workmen failed to get rations and thereafter they had abandoned the service.
On hearing this news the workmen went to see one of the partners of the appellant and demanded that the order of suspension passed against Shri Darshan Singh should be cancelled and he be reinstated as a Helper.
A4 wrote another letter to him on 21 2 59.It said You were served with a registered numberice on 5 2 59 that you since the afternoon of 25th Jan. 59 are on illegal and unjustified strike along with other workers You were given an opportunity to report for duty upto 8 2 59.
and the Govt.
1071 of 1966.
In Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory P Ltd., v. Motipur Sugar Factory, 1 the workers of the Respondent started a go slow in its Sugar Factory.
In the numberice given by the Respondents it was stated that the go slow tactics was likely to injure the 1 1965 3 S.C.R. 588.
Against this interlocutory order the Bank appealed to this Court which held that while the strikes were numberdoubt illegal under Sec.
Respondents held numberenquiry as required by the Standing Orders before dispensing with the services of the Appellant.
When this Workman did number join his duty the management by Ex.
23 b read with 24 1 of the Act, the Bank had by entering into, the agreement with the Govt.
after the management had suspended six of its workmen on certain charges of misconduct for having refused to ,operate some machines, another worker Shri Darshan Singh, a Helper of a Blowing Machine also refused on 25 1 59 when called upon by the management to work the machine in tile absence ,of Shri Daulat Ram, Machineman and was accordingly suspended the same day.
2 to 24.
B. Sinha, and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant Hardev Singh, for respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J While reference No 150 of 1958 was pending in respect of an Industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen relating to bonus, casual leave and sick leave etc.,
He was further asked to explain by 8 3 59 why his name should number be struck off.
