The conditions under which workmen can be laid off are conditions of service, and a lay-off without proper grounds therefor is a violation of the conditions of service within S. 22(a) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.

Judgement

VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J. - The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and owns a factory called Modi Oil Mills in the district of Meerut. The respondents are workmen employed in the Mills. The business of the Mills consists in the Manufacture of oils and paints. On 12-7-1954 the management put up the following notice:

"Notice is hereby given that due to non-availability of groundnut seed and neem seed at the parity with the ruling prices of the groundnut oil and neem oil, the Management is reluctantly compelled to close the Groundnut Crushing Section and Neem Section till the next groundnut season and thus the workers in the attached list are surplus and their services are laid off with effect from 14th July, 1954.

Workers, thus affected, shall be paid compensation according to Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, subject to conditions laid therein. It is further notified that the time of the attendance as provided in S. 25 (D) and (E) shall be 10 A. M. for all the laid off workers."

2. Pursuant to this notice, 142 workmen mentioned therein, being the respondents in this appeal, were laid off from 14-7-1954. On 26-7-1954 the workmen acting through their Union sent a notice to the management demanding full wages for the period of lay-off on the ground that it was unjustified and illegal. The management denied these allegations, and refused the demand. This being an industrial dispute as defined in S. 2(k), Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947, in the ordinary course, proceedings would have been taken with reference thereto under the provisions of that Act.

But there was at that time another industrial dispute between the parties pending final adjudication. That dispute had been referred under S. 10. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication to the Regional Conciliation Officer Meerut. He held pronounced his award, and against that, both the parties had perferred appeals to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and they were pending at the date of the notice.

The Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act 48 of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, contains special provisions with reference to certain disputes which might arise between parties, when there is already pending adjudication between them another industrial dispute. They are Ss. 22 and 23, which are as follows:

"22. During the period of thirty days allowed for the filing of an appeal under S. 10 or during the pendency of any appeal under this Act no employer shall -

(a) alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such appeal, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the filing of such appeal, or

(b) discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such appeal, save with the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal.

23. Where an employer contravenes the provisions of S.22 during the pendency of proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner to such Appellate Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the Appellate Tribunal shall decide the complaint as if it were an appeal pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall pronounce its decision there on and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly."

3. On 24-8-1954 the respondents filed an application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under S. 23 of the Act. Therein, they alleged that the lay-off was not bona fide, because the ground given therefor, namely, non-availability of groundnut and neem seeds at parity with ruling prices was not true; that further in view of pendency before the Labour Appellate Tribunal of an industrial dispute between the parties, the lay-off was in contravention of S.22 (a) of the Act, and they accordingly prayed that they might be awarded by way of compensation full wages for the entire period of the lay-off.

The appellant contested the claim. It contende