Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1957 Supreme(SC) 113

SUPREME COURTS OF INDIA
Industrial Court at Nagpur).25th October, 1957.
N.H. BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM AND P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.
Mill Manger, Model Mills Nagpur Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Dharam Das, Etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 464-472 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates for M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., for Appellant; Mr. R. V. S. Mani, Advocate, for Respondents.

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, R.V.S.Mani, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY

A strike is illegal if it is in consequence of an industrial dispute and the employer has not made an illegal change.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Strike - Legality - Cessation of work by employees in consequence of industrial dispute - Whether strike illegal - C. P. & Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act (23 of 1947), Ss. 2(6), 2(12), 2(13), 2(27), 16(5), 40(1)(c).
Fact of the Case:

Employees of a textile mill refused to work when the management reduced the number of workers required to operate a machine from three to two. The management dismissed the employees for misconduct. The Labour Commissioner rejected the employees' application to set aside the dismissal orders, but the State Industrial Court reversed the Labour Commissioner's order. The management appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the employees' strike was illegal because it was in consequence of an industrial dispute and the management had not made an illegal change. The Court also held that the State Industrial Court erred in law in setting aside the dismissal orders.
Issues: Whether the employees' strike was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the employees' strike was illegal because it was in consequence of an industrial dispute and the management had not made an illegal change. The Court also held that the State Industrial Court erred in law in setting aside the dismissal orders.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the State Industrial Court. The orders of the Assistant Labour Commissioner were restored.

Judgment

JAFER IMAM J. : These nine appeals are by special leave against the order of the State Industrial Court at Nagpur reversing in order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner of Nagpur who rejected the application of the respondents under S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the At). The respondents had applied to the Labour Commissioner under S. 16 to set aside the order of the appellant dismissing them from the service of the Model Mills Ltd., Nagpur with effect from 11th of January, 1956. The State Industrial Court purported to exercise its revisional powers under S. 16 (5) of the Act.

2. In the Model Mills Ltd., Nagpur machines known as "Seven Bowl Calender Machines", generally described as Calendar machines, were used. According to the respondents, at least three persons were required for working each of these machines and this had been the practice for many years. The management of the Model Mills Ltd., however, ordered that each machine was to be worked by two persons. On 16th of December, 1955, while such a machine was being worked by two persons one of them was seriously injured. It was contended that by reducing the number of persons to work each machine the management had not only increased the workload of the worker but had positively made the working of any such machine a dangerous operation and it was alleged that the action of the management was illegal. On the 19th of December, 1955, the respondents refused to work, as again on that day only two persons were deputed to work such a machine. On the refusal of the respondents to work, the management held an enquiry and framed a charge against the respondents on the 20th of December, 1955. After the enquiry the appellant passed the orders of dismissal against the respondents.

3. It may be mentioned at this stage that out of the nine respondents only two were deputed on 19-12-55 to work a Calender machine. The other seven were deputed to work in other departments. These seven persons refused to work out of sympathy for and in support of those persons who refused to work a Calender machine with only two persons.

4. The appellant s case was that every such Calender machine did not ordinarily require more than two persons to work it. Sometimes three persons were deputed to work such a machine if there was an extra load of work and sometimes also three persons were deputed to work such a machine, even if there was no need for it, in order to save the workers from loss of wages. It was contended that the action of the respondents in refusing to work amounted to an illegal strike and was contrary to the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Model Mills Ltd. The appellant, after due enquiry, found the respondents guilty and consequently dismissed them in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders.

5. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, who heard the applications of the respondents to set aside the orders of dismissal passed by the appellant, was of the opinion that the respondents could not prove that three persons were required to work a Calender machine so far as could be gathered from the records of the enquiry. He was further of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this issue although an attempt had been made to lead evidence before him as to the nature of the work and the number of workers required to work each Calender machine. He was further of the opinion that even if it be assumed that the appellant had reduced the number of workers on a Calender machine, the respondent s action to go on strike or refuse to work was illegal when legal, remedies were open to them to ventilate their grievances. He, accordingly, dismissed the applications of the respondents and declined to set aside the orders of the appellant dismissing the respondents from the service of the Model Mills Ltd.

6. The State Industrial Court, after referring to some of the evidence, came to the con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document