Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1957 Supreme(SC) 109

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th October, 1957.
BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS AND KAPUR JJ.
M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and another, Appellants
Versus
Their Workmen, Respondents.
Abdul Samad Khan and others, Appellants v. M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and another, Respondents.
M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and another, Appellants v. Bamapada Mukherjee and others, Respondents.
Akka Hussain and others, Appellants v. M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 44, 45, 336 and 337 of 1957.
Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1957.
Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1957:
Civil Appeal No. 336 of 1957:
Civil Appeal No. 337 of 1957:
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (M/s. Dipak Datta Chaudhury and B. N. Ghosh, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (in C. As. Nos. 44 and 336 of 1957) and Respondents (in C. As. Nos. 45 and 337 of 1957); M/s. S. K. Acharya, Arun Kumar Dutt, D. L Sen Gupta and Sukumar Ghosh, Advocates, for Appellants (in C. As. Nos. 45 and 337 of 1957) and Respondents (in C. As. Nos. 44 and 336 of 1957).

Advocates:
ARUN DUTTA, B.N.GHOSH, D.L.SEN GUPTA, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, M.C.SETALVAD, S.K.BHATTACHARJEE, SUKUMAR GHOSH

A lock-out is the closing of a place of employment, or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Lock-out and discharge - Distinction - Notice of lock-out and discharge - Construction - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Ss. 2(k), 25-F.
Fact of the Case:

The Company declared a lock-out and issued a notice, which stated that in consequence of the illegal strikes which took place on several previous dates, the Management has no option but to declare a lock-out of the entire Works except some special shifts with effect from Monday August 24, 1953; then in the concluding portion the notice stated- "The services of all other workers shall be deemed to be discharged with effect from Monday, August 24, 1953." On September 17, 1953, another notice was issued by the Company lifting the lick-out with effect from 6 a.m. on Friday, September 18, 1953. This notice stated inter alia: "All employees on the Works rolls of the Company on the 23rd August, 1953, and who wish to report for duty, must resume work between 6 a.m. on Friday, the 18th September, 1953, and 10 p.m. on Saturday, the 19th September, 1953, on their regular shift. If, however, any worker in the vicinity of Works is unable to resume duty on account of illness, he should report himself to the Company s Medical authorities or if unable personally to attend, send written intimation of his sickness to the Company by Saturday, the 19th September, 1953. In the latter case the Company will make arrangements for his medical examination. Such worker should resume duty from the date he is declared fit by the Company s Medical authorities."
Finding of the Court:

The expression "shall be deemed to be discharged" has to be read in the context of the declaration of a lock-out; such an expression is neither usually employed nor apt to effectuate an intention to terminate the services of the workmen altogether. A lock out , according to the definition in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, means the "closing of a place of employment, or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him". In this context, the notice when it said that the services of all other workers shall be deemed to be discharged with effect from the date of the lock-out really meant that the Company refused to employ the respondent workmen during the period when the place of employment was closed.
Issues: Whether the notices dated August 23, 1953, and September, 17, 1953, respectively, were notices of lock-out or discharge.
Ratio Decidendi: The two notices in question are not capable of bearing the construction which the learned Attorney-General has pressed for our acceptance, apart altogether from the question if under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there can be a simultaneous order of discharge and lock-out in respect of the same employees. The question of construction is really a question of intention-to be gathered primiarily from the words used in the documents; and if the words used are ambiguous, then surrounding circumstances can be looked into for the purpose of construing the notices.
Final Decision: Civil Appeal 44, Civil Appeal 45 and Civil Appeal 337 are without merit and must be dismissed. Civil Appeal 336 succeeds in part, and the decision of the Tribunals below is set aside in respect of the following eight men only-(1) Bamapada Mukherji, (2) Chandrashekhar Mukherji, (3) Niaz Hossain, (4) Dhani Ram, (5) Chandrabhan Singh, (6) Raja Singh, (7) Jai Kishore Singh, and (8) Himansu Chatto raj. In all other respects, the decision appealed from will stand. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, the parties will bear their own costs here.

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : These four appeals by special leave arise out of certain labour disputes between the employer, Messrs. Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and the Indian Standard Wagon Company Limited, Burnpur, Asansol, (hereinafter compendiously referred to as the Company) on one side and some of their employees on the other. Messrs. Martin Burn Limited, 12 Mission Row, Calcutta, are the Managing Agents of the Company. Originally, the case out of which Civil Appeals 44 and 45 have arisen was known as the case of 144 workmen, and the other case out of which Civil Appeals 336 and 337 have arisen was known as the case of 74 workmen. At present, the number of workmen involved in the four appeals is much smaller. Civil Appeals 44 and 45 go together as they arise out of the same decision Civil Appeal 44 being on behalf of the Company in respect now of 104 respondent workmen, and Civil Appeal 45 on behalf of 103 out of the said 104 workmen. Similarly, Civil Appeals 336 and 337 go together and arise out of a common decision. Civil Appeal 336 being on behalf of the Company in respect of 10 workmen in three groups and Civil Appeal No. 337, on behalf of 31 workmen. The facts of these two sets of appeals are somewhat different, and it will be conducive to convenience as also to clarity of discussion of the issues involved, if the two sets are dealt with separately.

Civil Appeals 44 and 45.

2. We take up first Civil Appeals 44 and 45. With regard to these appeals the relevant facts are these. In 1947 the Asansol Indian Iron and Steel Workers Union with one Prof. Abdul bari as President was recognised by the Company. On the death of Prof. Bari, one Mr. Michael John became President and the Union continued to be recognised by the Company. In 1951 the Company was declared a Public Utility Service under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was alleged on behalf of the Company that on September 12, 1951, a procedure was established for an amicable settlement of such disputes as might arise between the Company and its employees. The procedure was substantially this: in case of a dispute regarding an individual employee, the dispute would be referred first to the Shop-in-charge and then to a works Committee, and the Union would discourage an individual approach to the management of the Company; if the Works Committee was able to effect a settlement, it would be final; but if it failed, the Union could take up the case on merits, with the management of the Company. The above procedure, it is stated, was accepted at a joint meeting of the Works Committee held on November 13, 1951. Then we come to 1953. The case of the company was that on January 18, 1953, certain workers of the Hot Mills section resorted to an illegal stoppage of work, and on the next day all the three shifts of the Hot Mills section commenced a slow down strike. This adversely affected the production of the Company, and it addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Union on January 27, 1953, drawing the attention of the Union to the illegal stoppage of work and slow down tactics; the letter further stated that if there was no improvement in the attitude of the workers, the Company would be compelled to take such action as it considered necessary to bring about resumption of normal work. Two days later, the workers of the Hot Mills section submitted certain demands, but not through the Union. With regard to the demands made by the workers of the Hot Mills section, they were informed that joint petitions, without reference to the Union or the Works Committee, would not be accepted and so long as normal work was not resumed, no consideration could be given to the demands made. It appears that the Union also informed the Company that the workers concerned had made no representation to the Union, and the Union did not support their activities. It is obvious that at this stage there was a cleavage between some of the workers of the Hot Mills section and the Union. The Com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1957 Supreme(SC) 109

A lock-out is the closing of a place of employment, or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him.

Cases Referred (1)