Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1959 Supreme(SC) 206

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th November, 1959.
S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Feroz Din and others, Appellants
Versus
State of W.B., Respondent.
M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Interveners.
Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1958
Advocates appeared
M/s. H. J. Umrigar and Sukumar Ghose, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. S. M. Bose, Advocate-General for the State of West Bengal; Mr. A. C. Mitra, Senior Advocate (M/s. D. N. Mukherjee and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with them), for the Respondent; Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. P. K. Chakravarty and B. N. Ghosh, Advocates, with him) for Interveners.

Advocates:
A.C.Mittal, B.N.GHOSH, B.SEN, D.N.MUKHERJI, H.J.Umrigar, P.K.BOSH, P.K.CHAKRAVARTI, S.M.BOSE, SUKUMAR GHOSH

A discharge of employees does not amount to a lock-out within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(1), 2(OO), 22, 23, 24(1), 24(3), 25, 25F, 27, 33, 34(1) - STRIKE - LOCK-OUT - DISCHARGE - MEANING AND SCOPE - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, employees of the Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., were convicted under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for instigating and inciting others to take part in an illegal strike. The strike was called in response to the company's notices, which were interpreted as a lock-out of the workers.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the notices issued by the company did not constitute a lock-out but rather a discharge of the employees. The Court further held that a discharge of employees does not amount to a lock-out within the meaning of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the notices issued by the company constituted a lock-out or a discharge of the employees? 2. Whether a discharge of employees amounts to a lock-out within the meaning of the Act? 3. Whether the sanction granted by the Government of West Bengal to file the complaint against the appellants was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notices issued by the company did not constitute a lock-out but rather a discharge of the employees. The Court reasoned that the words "refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him" in Section 2(1) of the Act do not include the discharge of an employee. The Court further reasoned that a lock-out, as defined in the Act, contemplates no severance of the relation of employer and employed, whereas a discharge does. 2. The Court held that a discharge of employees does not amount to a lock-out within the meaning of the Act. The Court reasoned that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results, such as prohibiting employers from discharging employees during conciliation proceedings, even in cases of serious misconduct. 3. The Court held that the sanction granted by the Government of West Bengal to file the complaint against the appellants was valid. The Court reasoned that the sanction was granted after all the necessary facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority, even though these facts were not stated on the face of the sanction itself.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, subject to a modification of the sentence. The Court reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for the period already served and a fine of Rs. 100 with simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days in default of payment of the fine for each appellant.

Judgment

SARKAR, J.: There are five appellants before us Four of them were employees of a company called the Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and the fifth an outsider.

2. The appellants were convicted by a Magistrate of Asansol in West Bengal of an offence under S. 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for having instigated and incited others to take part in an illegal strike. Each appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal by the appellants, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Asansol confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. A petition to the High Court at Calcutta against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by way of revision also failed. The appellants have now appealed to this Court with special leave. The respondent to this appeal is the State of West Bengal and the Company has been allowed to intervene.

3. The Company owns a factory at Burnpur near Asansol in which there is a Sheet Mill. The factory was declared by the Govt. to be a public utility service. There was a slow down strike in the Hot Mill section of the Sheet Mill. The Company thereupon issued charge-sheets to some of its workers, including the four appellants in its employment, for taking part in the slow-down strike and instigating others to join it as also for other misconduct and after an enquiry, dismissed these four appellants from service. On such dismissal the slow-down strike gained in strength. Thereupon, on 8-4-1953, the Company issued a notice to the workers of the Hot Mill the relevant portion of which is set out below :

"The workers of the Hot Mills (Sheet Mills) are hereby notified that unless they voluntarily record their willingness to operate the plant to its normal capacity they will be considered to be no longer employed by the Company, after which the Company will recruit other labour to man the plant.

The workers must record their willingness before Friday, 10th April 2-0 p.m., otherwise action as stated above will be taken."

4. As a result of this notice forty workers of the Hot Mill recorded their willingness but the rest, who were about three hundred in number, did not make any response at all. In fact, on 11-4-1953, the workers in the entire Sheet Mill numbering about one thousand and three hundred, went on a sit-down strike which lasted till 20-4-1953.

5. On 25-4-1953, the Company issued another notice to the workers which is set out below:

In accordance with General Manager s Notice dated 8-4-1953, you have been considered to be no longer employed by the Company after 2 p.m. on Friday, the 10th April, 1953, as you did not record your willingness before that date and time to operate the Plant to its normal capacity. Your formal discharge from Company s service had been kept pending in order to assure to the fullest that no one who wanted to work normally, was being discharged on circumstantial assumptions.

Now, however, there are no further reasons to believe that every one concerned has not all necessary information about the facts of the case and every opportunity to form a correct and legitimate opinion on the utterly irresponsible attitude adopted by some of the workers.

A copy of the notice dated 22-4-1953, issued by the Directorate of Labour, Govt. of West Bengal, which has already been widely circulated, is attached herewith, in English with translations in Bengali, Hindi and Urdu.

You are, therefore, hereby given a final Notice that if by 11 a. m. on 28-4-1953, you do not record your willingness to operate the Plant to its normal capacity, your name will be removed from the Company s Roll and your discharge will become fully effective with all the implications of a discharge on grounds of serious breach of discipline, and your place will be filled by promotion from amongst the existing men or by engaging new men."

After this notice the workers of the entire factory, except those engaged in essential services, went on a strike on 27-4-1953, which lasted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document