SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(SC) 96

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
12th December 1952.
MAHAJAN, S.R. DAS AND BHAGWATI, JJ.
The Workers of the Industry Colliery, Appellants
Versus
The Management of the Industry Colliery, Respondent.
Appeal No. 133 of 1951.
Advocates appeared
Shri N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (Shri S. L. Chhibber, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri Govind Saran Singh, Agent, for Appellants; Shri S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate (Shri S. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him) instructed by Shri P. K. Chatterjee, Agent, for Respondent.

Advocates:
GOVIND SARAN, N.C.CHATTERJI, N.MUKHERJI, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.L.CHHABRA, S.P.SINHA

Headnote:Sections 20 (2) (b), 22 (1) (d), 24-Strike before receipt of sonciliation report by appropriate Government illegal-When conciliation proceedings deemed to be included.

       The appellants who had sent notice of their intention to strike declined to participate in conciliation proceedings which were initiated by the Regional Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, on October 22, 1949. The Cnief Labour Commissioner received the report October 25, but a copy of the report was sent by the Chief Labour Commissioner, and received by the Ministry of Labour only on November 17. Meanwhile the appellants went on strike on November 7.

       Held: (1) Under S. 20 (2) (b) of the Act the conciliation proceeding held by the Regional Labour Commissioner concluded only on November 17 when his report was received by the Central Government, and as the appellants went on strike before that date, it was a strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and was therefore illegal under S. 22 (1) (d) of the Act. The provisions of several sections of the Act show that time is: of the essence of the Act and the requirements of its relevant provisions must be punctually obeyed and carried out if the Act is to operate harmoniously.

       (2) A conciliation proceeding cannot be deemed to have concluded under S. 20 (2) (b) of the Act in a case where no settlement has been arrived at, as soon as the Conciliation Officer sends his report. It can be deemed to have concluded only when the report is actually received by the appropriate Government.

       The Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, is not, in the absence of any express delegation of powers by the Central Government the agent of the latter for the purpose of receiving the report of a Conciliation Officer.

Judgement

S. R. DAS J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision dated April 24, 1950 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad confirming the decision dated February 2, 1950 of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, which had declared the one-day strike by the appellants that took place on November 7, 1949 to be an illegal strike. The relevant facts are as follows:

2. On October 13, 1949 the appellants through the Secretary of their Union gave a notice to the respondents, under S. 22(1), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that they proposed to call a one-day strike on the expiry of November 6, 1949 for the fulfillment of demands, 16 in number, noted therein. This strike notice was, in accordance with R. 85 of the Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sent to (1) the Conciliation Officer (Central), Dhanbad, (2) the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, (3) the Chief Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, (4) Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi and (5) A. D, C., Dhanbad. This notice was received at the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad, on October 15, 1949. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) held conciliation proceedings at Dhanbad on October 22, 1949, but the appellants, by their letter of the same date, declared to participate in the proceedings alleging that they were convinced that nothing would come out of the same and that the proceedings should, therefore, be considered "to be ceased." On the same day the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, addressed letter No. RLC/CON 5 (Token) 7910 to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, stating that after receipt of the notice of strike he had issued notice to the parties for conciliation, that the employers representatives were ready to discuss the demands but the Union s representative filed a petition in writing saying that they did not want to participate in the proceedings and that no fresh material had been placed before him to change his view and that he was not in favour of recommending a reference of the demand to the Industrial Tribunal. The letter ended with a request that the Government may be informed of the situation.

It appears that this report was received in the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, on October 25, 1949. Although the Chief Labour Commissioner, in his letter of November 17,1949 to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, states that the contents of the latter s report had already been communicated to the Ministry of Labour, a copy of the report was actually sent to and received by the Ministry of Labour only on that day. In the meantime on November 7, 1949 the appellants, about 700 in number, went on one-day strike as per their strike notice. Apparently the respondents contended that the strike was illegal and they made an application, under S. 8(2), Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948, to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, for a decision on the question whether the strike was legal or illegal. By his order dated February 2, 1950, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, declared that the strike was illegal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the appeallants, under S. 8(4) of the last mentioned Act, preferred an appeal to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad which, however, also held that the strike was illegal and that the conclusions arrived at by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) were correct and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The appellants thereafter applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.

3. The only question raised on this appeal is whether the strike was illegal. Section 24 (1) of the Act provides, inter alia, that a strike shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of S. 22 or S. 23 of the Act. Section 22(1) p



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top