Judgment

ALAGIRISWAMI, J.:- The question that arises in these appeals is the implication of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 14th August, 1972 the Government of Maharashtra made a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the dismissal by the appellant of one of its employees M. S. Bobhate. On 25th August 1972 the appellant dismissed three other workers, Dastoor, Shame and Soman after an enquiry and this led to a strike in the appellant s factory. Towards the end of October 1972 the Company discharged about 312 of its employees and filed 12 applications before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of such discharge on the ground that a reference was pending before it. The appellant pleaded before the Tribunal that the strike was illegal as a reference was pending in respect of Bobhate and therefore the discharge of its workers by the appellant was in order and approval should be granted. On August 30, 1973 the Tribunal rejected all the applications for approval and these appeals have been filed in pursuance of a Special Leave granted by this Court.

2. Though reference was made to the repeated calls on behalf of the employer to the strikers to return to work and the refusal of the workmen to return to work the sole point for determination is whether when a reference is pending before the Labour Court in respect of a matter falling under Section 2A any strike by the other workers would be illegal. That is the only ground on which Special Leave has been granted. Under Section24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this case, a strike shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or Section 23. We are not concerned with Section 22 in this case though at one stage that seems to have been one of the grounds for contending that the strike was illegal. Section 23, insofar as it is relevant for the purposes of this case, reads as follows:

"23. No workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and no employer of any such workman shall declare a lock-out

(a).....................................

(b) during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and two months after the conclusion of such proceedings:

(bb) ...............:

(c) during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award."

The important words are "during the pendency of proceedings". Undoubtedly a proceeding was pending before the Labour Court and that was in respect of the dismissal of Bobhate. Did this make the strike by the workmen of the appellant illegal though at least in its origin the strike had nothing to do with Bobhate s case? It was common ground that even though the dispute between the employer and the employees might relate to a case of a single workman the provisions of Section 23 (b) would apply if the single workman s cause has been espoused by a labour union which need not necessarily comprise of all the employees of the concerned employer. The decisions of some High Courts establish that even though the proceedings pending before the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal might relate to certain matters only, there cannot be a strike or lock-out even in relation to matters other than those which are pending before the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal (see Provat Kumar v. W. T. C. Parkar, AIR 1950 Cal 116, and State of Bihar v. Deodar Jha, AIR 1958 Pat 51). We express our agreement with this view. But the question is: does the fact that a proceeding is pending before a Labour Court in respect of an individual workman bar the other workers from resorting to a strike? Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which came into effect on 1-12-1965 reads as follows:

"2A. Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates