Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1962 Supreme(SC) 246

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th July, 1962.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Express Newspapers Private Ltd. (In both the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
1. Michael Mark and another (In C. A. No. 294 of 1961), and 2. G. Sreedharan and others (In C.A.No. 295 of 1961), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 294 and 295 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri Senior Advocate, (M/s. G. Gopalakrishnan and V. J. Merchant, Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and Co., with him), for Appellant, (In both the Appeals); M/s. K.T. Sule and Janardan Sharma, Advocates, for Respondents. (In both the Appeals).
Special Civil Appln. Nos. 1426 and 3190 of 1958, D/- 5-9-1958 and 6-10-1958 respectively - Bom.

Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, JANARDAN SHARMA, K.T.SULE, V.J.MERCHANT

Employees going on strike with the intent to enforce demands do not abandon their employment, and an employer cannot unilaterally convert a strike into abandonment of employment through notices.

Headnote:
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - S. 15 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 2(K) - STRIKE - ABANDONMENT OF EMPLOYMENT - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - COMPENSATION - STANDING ORDER 25(1) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Employees of the appellant went on strike on December 31, 1956, due to unmet demands. The appellant issued notices warning of disciplinary action and potential termination of employment if the strike continued. On January 14, 1957, the appellant removed the striking employees' names from the muster roll, considering them to have abandoned their employment. The strike ended on March 26, 1957, and some employees were unable to return to work due to filled vacancies. The employees filed claims under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for wages in lieu of notice, leave, and compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the employees did not abandon their employment by going on strike, as they intended to continue working and were seeking better terms. The appellant's notices attempting to unilaterally convert the strike into abandonment of employment were ineffective. The removal of the employees' names from the muster roll on January 14, 1957, constituted termination of employment without notice, entitling them to compensation under Standing Order 25(1).
Issues: 1. Whether the employees abandoned their employment by going on strike? 2. Whether the appellant could unilaterally convert the strike into abandonment of employment through notices? 3. Whether the removal of employees' names from the muster roll constituted termination of employment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Going on strike with the intent to enforce demands does not constitute abandonment of employment. 2. The appellant could not unilaterally convert the strike into abandonment of employment by issuing notices. 3. Removing employees' names from the muster roll without notice constituted termination of employment.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the employees were entitled to compensation under Standing Order 25(1).

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : This judgment will govern C. As. 294 and 295 of 1961 which arise out of identical facts. The facts necessary for deciding these appeals may be stated thus:

2. The first respondent in C.A. 294 of 1961 and the first 97 respondents in the other appeal were employees of the Express Newspapers Ltd., the appellants, at Bombay. On December 31, 1956, all the employees of the appellants went on strike because three demands which were made by them on the previous day were not granted by the appellants. On that day the appellants posted the following two notices addressed to the workmen who had struck work on their notice board :

"To ALL WORKMEN WHO HAVE STRUCK WORK

You have struck work in contravention of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. The undersigned takes a serious view of the uncalled for and unjustified strike.

If you do not resume work immediately the management will be free to take such action as it deems fit in the matter."

"TO ALL WORKMEN WHO HAVE STRUCK WORK

Further to our notice of date, we have to inform all the workers on strike that unless they resume work unconditionally with immediate effect the management will make alternative arrangements to fill in the vacancies caused by the desertion of workers from their places of duty.

It may be noticed that the management will take disciplinary action against those workers who have instigated others to go on strike."

On the next day they published a third notice stating therein that those workers who are desirous of resuming duty should report for duty on January 2, 1957 at 10 am. That notice also stated "if the workers fail to resume duty by 10 a.m. on January 2, 1957 we shall consider that they are not interested in continuing in our employment and as such shall remove their names from our muster as their having left services of their own accord." It would appear that a letter was also addressed to the workers union on December 31, 1956. In answer to it the General Secretary of the Union said in his reply dated January 2, 1957 that the workers went on strike because their demands were not met and that no other alternative was left to them for securing their demands. He further stated that the strike was perfectly legal and that the various notices which were being published one after another by the appellants will not deter the workers in their resolve to continue the strike till their demands were met. On January 14, 1957 the General Manager of the appellants sent by registered post a letter to every employee on strike in the following terms:

"Further to our notices dated January 1, 1957 and January 3, 1957, the workers who are not attending work since December 31, 1956 in spite of several requests to resume work, are hereby advised that their names are removed from the Muster as from 2 p.m. today (January 14, 1957) as their having left our services of their own accord. Arrangements have been made to fill up the vacancies occurring as a result of desertion of workers from their places of duty.

Arrangements will be made to make payment of their dues, if any.

...... ....... ....... ...... ........

A notice was published on the notice board at the premises of the appellants in similar terms. The strike was called off on March 26, 1957. It may be mentioned that all the employees of the appellants had not joined the strike and that some of those who had gone on strike rejoined before the strike was called off. A considerable number of the appellants employees could, however, not be taken back even after the strike ended because their vacancies had been filled up.

3. One of the workmen filed an application under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in which a claim was made for 30 days wages in lieu of notice, 20 days wages in lieu of leave, two months wages as compensation and full pay from March 26, 1957. The claims for the last two items were given up by that worker. On September 12, 1957, the Payment of Wages Authority granted the application in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document