Judgment

Das Gupta, J.-The appellant, a Sugar Mill Company, made on December 31, 1956, an application under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna for the dismissal of 21 workmen for misconduct in connection with "go slow" alleged to have been resorted to by the workmen of the factory from the midnight of February 12. to the February 18, 1955. The Tribunal held that actual participation in a "go slow" had been established only against one of the workmen at the Donga end and that the " go slow " at the later stages in which the other 20 workmen had been engaged occurred as a necessary consequence of this go slow by one workman at the Donga end and was not a deliberate " go slow " by them. The Tribunal was of opinion, also that the management was not acting buna fide and really was seeking to victimise active members of the Union which the employer had refused to recognise. Accordingly, it refused permission in respect of 20 of the workmen and gave permission to dismiss only Nihora Dubey a workman at the Donga. The correctness of this refusal is challenged before us in this appeal by Special Leave. The appellant s convention is two-fold. First, it is said that the finding of the Tribunal that these workmen in respect of whom permission to dismiss was refused were not guilty of any deliberate go slow is perverse ; secondly it is contended that the Tribunal s view that the employer was guilty of mala fide conduct and victimisation of these workmen for Union activities is arbitrary and erroneous.

It does not appear to have been disputed that " go slow " was actually resorted to in this factory from the 12th February to 18th February, 1955. It was indeed hardly open to the workmen to dispute this, after all the pomp and ceremony with which "go slow" was celebrated. We find that as early as 15th January, 1955, ten demands were communicated by the Union on behalf of the workmen by a letter which said that unless these demands were conceded by the 26th January, 1955, the workmen would resort to "go slow " from the 30th January, 1955. This notice to "go slow" appears to have been withdrawn on the 22nd January, 1955, apparently on the advice of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Muzaffarpur. A further letter was issued the same day in which five demands were made with a request to concede these by the 6th February failing which it was said they would "resort to go slow from the 19th February, 1955". The Secretary of the Bharat Sugar Mills to whom the Conciliation Officer wrote, that very day, wrote back on the 22nd January, 1955, that they had not received any notice dated January 22, 1955. In reply to a further communication from the Assistant Labour Commissioner the appellant sent a telegram on the 3rd February, 1955, regretting inability to attend the proposed conciliation meeting on the 4th February, 1955, as both the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary were away. Then on the 8th February another telegram was sent on behalf of the management informing the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the General Secretary would be returning soon and that any date after the 11th may be fixed. Thereafter, in reply to a further communication from the Assistant Commissioner inquiring as to what date would suit the management the General Secretary Shri K. C. Sarda sent another telegram requesting the Assistant Labour Commissioner to fix any date before the I7th. This telegram was sent on the 11th February. On the next date, the 12th February Sarda sent a further telegram to the Assistant Labour Commissioner stating that he would come to Muzaffarpur on the 15th afternoon. Before any action could however be taken by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the workers commenced their " go slow " from the midnight of the 12th February.

" Go slow " which is a picturesque description of deliberate delaying of production by workmen pretending to be engaged in the factory is one of the most pernicious practices t