Judgment

DUA, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, dated October 13, 1966, by means of which the workmen of the appellant were held entitled to wages for the period of the lock-out beginning with February 28, 1964 and ending with March 22, 1964.

2. On March 20, 1964 the Governor of Bihar referred the following disputes to the Industrial Tribunal :

1. Whether the strike launched by the workers on the morning of the 27th February, 1964, was justified ?

2. Whether the lock-out declared by the Management is justified ?

3. Whether the workmen are entitled to wages for the period of strike and/or lock-out ?

On the first point the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the strike by the workmen on February 27, 1964, was not justified. As a result of this conclusion the lock-out declared by the Management on February 27, 1964 was held to be justified but on a consideration of the material placed before the Tribunal no justification for continuing the lock-out on the following days was shown. On this conclusion the Tribunal decided under point No. 3, that the workmen were entitled to wages for the remaining period of the lock-out.

3. In this Court the learned Advocate for the appellant raised only two points. The first submission attacked the decision of the Tribunal under point No. 2, where it is held that the lock-out by the Management was unjustified after February 27, 1964, and the second submission assailed the decision under point No. 3 awarding to the workmen wages for the period of lock-out between February 28, 1964 and March 22, 1964.

4. On the first point Shri Gokhale very frankly conceded that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal was not open to challenge in the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. He, however, contended that the order of the Tribunal in this respect is open to question on the ground that the appellant had been deprived of a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence in support of its case. He referred us to the proceedings of the Tribunal held on September 29, 1966. On that date the Tribunal recorded the following order :

"Parties present. Management is represented by Shri Pandey S. Prasad, Personal Officer and the workmen are represented by Shri Kalika Nandan Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Pradeep Lamp Works Karamchari Sangh and Shri B. B. Karan on behalf of Pradeep Lamp Workers Union. Shri Karan files written statement on behalf of his union today. This written statement cannot be accepted as it has been filed so late. The Workers Union may adduce its evidence if it so likes.

Hearing of the case is taken up. As the Karamchari Sangh pleaded its inability to start its evidence, the management is called upon to produce its witnesses. The management examines M. W. 1. Trilokinath Rastogi and M. W. 2, Shri R. M. Kahattriya who are discharged after cross-examination. M. W. 1, proves Exts. A, A-1, B, B-1, B-2 and B-3 for the management. Thereafter the management prays that the case may be adjourned as it wants to examine more witnesses. The parties should have come ready with all their evidence today. The prayer for adjournment by the management is therefore rejected. Oral evidence on behalf of the management closed. Union examined L. W. 1, Krishna Thakur who is discharged, after cross-examination. As it is late, the case is adjourned for tomorrow for further hearing. Call for the letter of the Labour Commissioner, dated March 13, 1964 on party s risk."

5. The argument strongly pressed on behalf of the appellant was that the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the appellant s prayer for adjournment when it had already given time to the Karamchari Sangh to produce its evidence later because of its inability to start its evidence in the first instance. According to the appellant s argument the discretion exercised by the Tribunal was arbitrary and contrary to the accepted judicial procedure. In this connection our attention was also drawn to a