1. Employee dismissed for instigating illegal strike — Application for reinstatement under Section 16, Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th March, 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
The Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant
Versus
Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 529 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. Narayanaswamy Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji. Ravider Narain; and O. C. Mathur, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Respondent No. 1; M/s. M. S. K. Sastri and M.S. Narasimhan Advocates, for Respondent No. 2.
Advocates:
B.NARAYANASWAMY, I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, M.S.K.Shastri, M.S.NARASIMHAN, O.C.MATHUR
B.NARAYANASWAMY, I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, M.S.K.Shastri, M.S.NARASIMHAN, O.C.MATHUR
The court held that "rendered illegal" in Section 42(1)(g) does not mean "held illegal" by a court; thus, employers can take action against employees in illegal strikes without a prior formal declaration. Additionally, the Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to incidentally decide strike legality under Section 16(3).
Headnote:(A) Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 - Sections 16, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 - Interpretation of "rendered illegal" vs "held illegal" - Whether an employer is prohibited from taking action against a workman for participating in an illegal strike before it is formally declared so under Section 41 - The prohibition in Section 42(1)(g) against punishing an employee for participating in a strike operates only when the strike is not "rendered illegal" under the provisions of the Act - The phrase "rendered illegal" is used in contradistinction to "held illegal" used in Sections 43, 44, and 45 - An employer is not compelled to wait for a formal declaration of illegality by the industrial court before taking disciplinary action if the strike falls within the provisions of Section 40. (Paras 6, 7, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction of Labour Commissioner - Section 16(3) - Whether the authority has jurisdiction to decide the legality of a strike in an application for reinstatement - While Section 41 empowers the industrial court to decide the legality of a strike, such jurisdiction is not exclusive because the court may refuse to decide on applications other than those made by the government - Consequently, the authority has jurisdiction to decide the question of legality or illegality of a strike incidentally for performing its functions under Section 16(3) when such a question is raised. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
An employee was dismissed for instigating an illegal strike. The employee applied for reinstatement before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner ordered reinstatement, holding that the employer could not take action until the strike was formally declared illegal by the industrial court. The industrial court upheld the reinstatement but disagreed on the jurisdiction point, stating the employer could take action before a formal declaration. The High Court subsequently quashed the orders, ruling that the Labour Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to act as an appellate authority over the domestic tribunal's findings and questioning the jurisdiction to decide on the legality of the strike.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the employer is free to take action against an employee as soon as the employer believes the strike is illegal under the Act, without waiting for a formal declaration. Furthermore, the Labour Commissioner has the jurisdiction to decide the legality of a strike when that question is raised during an enquiry under Section 16(3).
Issues: (1) Whether Section 42(1)(g) prohibits an employer from taking action against a workman for participation in an illegal strike before it is so declared under Section 41; and (2) whether the Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the legality or illegality of the strike in an application made under Section 16(3).
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between "rendered illegal" (Section 42) and "held illegal" (Sections 43-45), concluding that the former refers to the strike's nature under Section 40, not a formal judicial declaration. Requiring a prior declaration would create an impossible position for industrial management. Regarding jurisdiction, since the industrial court is not mandated to decide all applications under Section 41, the Labour Commissioner must have the power to decide legality incidentally to determine if a dismissal was wrongful under Section 16(3).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether employer action requires prior judicial declaration of strike illegality under Section 41 and whether Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine strike legality under Section 16(3). (Para 1 , 5 , 10 )
3. Distinction between rendered and held illegal — Management's inability to wait for court declarations — Labour Commissioner's jurisdiction to decide legality to fulfill Section 16(3) duties. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 )
4. Rendered illegal does not mean held illegal by a court; Labour Commissioner possesses jurisdiction to decide strike legality when exercising powers under Section 16(3). (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 11 )
6. Does an employer need a court declaration of a strike's illegality before taking disciplinary action against employees?
No. The phrase rendered illegal in Section 42(1)(g) is distinct from held illegal. An employer can take action if the strike is illegal under Section 40 without waiting for a formal court declaration under Section 41. (Para 7 , 9 )
7. Does the Labour Commissioner have jurisdiction to decide the legality of a strike in an application under Section 16(3)?
Yes. Since the courts under Section 41 are not mandated to decide legality on private applications, the Labour Commissioner must have jurisdiction to decide such questions to perform functions under Section 16(3). (Para 10 )
8. What is the legal distinction between a strike being rendered illegal and being held illegal?
Rendered illegal refers to strikes that meet the criteria of illegality under Section 40, whereas held illegal refers to a formal judicial determination by the State or District Industrial Court. (Para 7 , 9 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA. J. : Two main questions arise in this appeal. The first is whether S. 42 (1) (g) of the CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT , 1947, prohibits an employer from taking action agaist a workman for participation in an illegal strike before it is so declared under S. 41 of the Act. The second question is whether in an application made under S. 16 (3) of the Act the Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the legality or illegality of the strike.
2. On September 21, 1956 the first respondent in this appeal, the Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd., served a charge- sheet on one of its employees Sulemankhan Mullaji, who is the second respondent in the appeal alleging that he had instigated workers of the Weaving Department to go on an illegal strike earlier that day. After holding an enquiry into the matter the Manager came to the conclusion that the charge had been established being of opinion that this constituted misconduct under Cl. 25 (b) of the Standing Orders. Thereafter, the Manager ordered Sulemankhan to be summarily dismissed without notice and without compensation in lieu of notice. Sulemankhan made an application against this order to the Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh under S. 16 of the CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT , 1947. The Labour Commissioner was of opinion that the authority to decide the legality of a strike had been entrusted by s. 41 of the Act by the legislature to the State Industrial Court. He also held that before a strike had been held by either of these authorities to be illegal the employer had no right to take any action against his workmen on his own view that a strike was illegal. The Lobour Commissioner further held that there was no legal evidence to prove the allegations against Sulemankhan and that in inflicting the punishment of dismissal the Manager had not paid due regard to sub-el. (4) of Cl. 26 of the Standing Orders. Accordingly, he ordered the reinstatement of Sulemankhan with full wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.
3. The revision application by the first respondent proved unsuccessful. The State Industrial Court, which is the revisional authority disagreed with the Labour Court s view that the employer could not take action before a decision from the State Industrial Court or the District Industrial Court declaring the strike to be illegal had been obtained. Being however of opinion that the enquiry had not been held in accordance with the Standing Order in Cl. 26 (2) and also that in awarding the punishment the Manager had not taken into consideration the matters mentioned in the Standing Orders in Cl. 26 (4), the Industrial Court concluded that the Labour Commissioner was justified in examining the evidence for itself. It further held that the finding of fact given by the Labour Commissioner could not be challenged in revision. The final conclusion of the State Industrial Court, as already indicated, was that the order of reinstatement made by the Labour Commissioner was fully justified.
4. Against this order the employer (the first respondent) moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court indicated its view that though the Labour Commissioner may not have the jurisdiction to decide the question of illegality of a strike, it may decide the question incidentally for the purposes mentioned in Section 16 of the Act if in an enquiry under S. 16 a question is raised that the dismissal was wrongful as there was no incitement of an illegal strike under Cl. 25(b) of the Standing Orders. After expressing this view the High Court, however, added the words : "That aspect of the matter need not be considered because the strike instigated here was not held to be a legal strike." The High Court was of opinion that the Industrial Court had fallen into an error in thinking that the charge sheet served on the workmen was defective. It also held that neit
