SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 201

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P.N. BHAGWATI AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
M/s. Lakmirattan cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Its Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No, 1868 of 1973, D/- 2-5-1975.
Advocates appeared
M/s. J. P. Goyal and D. P. Mukherjee, Advocates, for Appellant; Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, for Respondents.

Advocates:
D.P.MUKHERJI, J.P.GOYAL, URMILA KAPUR

Headnote:

U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 6-B - Industrial Matters - Dispute between parties in regard to bonus - Notice for strike for one year - There were disputes between appellant and its workmen in regard to various industrial matters and these disputes were settled by an agreement dated 25th November, 1971 made between appellant and Mazdoor Panchayat and registered under S. 6-B of U. P. Act Clause (2) of Agreement provided that "the Union will not give any notice for strike for one year from today s date". There were other clauses in the Agreement which imposed - Obligations on appellant, but in view we are taking, it is not necessary to spend any time in referring to them. Suffice it to state that the dispute between parties in regard to bonus for years was left to the decision of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur. But then dispute again arose between parties as regards payment of bonus for years and this dispute was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal under S. 6 (3) of U. P. Act - Mazdoor Panchayat made an application to the Industrial Tribunal stating that the Union did not want to proceed with dispute because matter had been discussed between the parties in the presence of State Ministe and during these discussions State Minister had advised the management to pay four per cent bonus to the workmen for each of the three years - Held, One of contentions which appealed to the Industrial Tribunal in setting aside the orders of dismissal against these twenty-one workmen was that originally orders of dismissal were passed against fifty-three workmen, but out of them, thirty-one were reinstated and there was no reason why these twenty-one workmen, whose cases were identical, should be treated differently and denied reinstatement - We do not think there is any force in this contention - Out of fifty-three workmen against whom orders of dismissal were passed - But that could not be a ground for reinstatement of these twenty-one workmen whose cases were differentiated by Chief Minister himself and in regard to whom Reference was made for industrial adjudication - There would have been no need for making Reference for industrial adjudication in case of these twenty-one workmen, if they were to be treated, straightway, without any further enquiry into their respective cases, on a par with the thirty-one workmen who were directed to be reinstated - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- The appellant is a limited liability company carrying on business of running a cotton textile mill in Kanpur. The workmen employed by the appellant are affiliated to two unions, some to Lakshmi Rattan Mazdoor Panchayat and others to Lakshmi Rattan Shramik Union. We are concerned in this appeal with Lakshmi Rattan Mazdoor Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the Mazdoor Panchayat as that is the union which has the majority membership of the workmen

2. It appears that there were disputes between the appellant and its workmen in regard to various industrial matters and these disputes were settled by an agreement dated 25th November, 1971 made between the appellant and the Mazdoor Panchayat and registered under S. 6-B of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act). Clause (2) of the Agreement provided that "the Union will not give any notice for strike for one year from today s date". There were other clauses in the Agreement which imposed. obligations on the appellant, but in the view we are taking, it is not necessary to spend any time in referring to them. Suffice it to state that the dispute between the parties in regard to bonus for the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 was left to the decision of Mohd. Ahsan. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur. But then dispute again arose between the parties as regards payment of bonus for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 and this dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under S. 6 (3) of the U. P. Act by an order dated 8-6-1971. The Reference was numbered Adjudication Case No. 82 of 1971. On or about 29th June,1972, it seems, there were negotiations between the parties at the intervention of the Labour Minister and a formula was evolved for payment of bonus for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. In view of this arrangement, the Mazdoor Panchayat made an application to the Industrial Tribunal on 25th July, 1972 stating that the Union did not want to proceed with the dispute because the matter had been discussed between the parties in the presence of the State Minister on 29th June, 1972 and during these discussions the State Minister had advised the management to pay four per cent bonus to the workmen for each of the three years. Since the workmen were not prepared to pursue the Reference, the Industrial Tribunal made an award dated 14th August, 1972 holding that the workmen were not entitled to any bonus for the years in question. Though the award was signed on 14th August, 1972, it was not published in the Gazette until 7th October, 1972.

3. Even so, the Mazdoor Panchayat gave a notice dated 18th August, 1972 stating that the workmen would go on strike from 11th September, 1972 unless their demands were satisfied. The appellant repeatedly explained to the President and the Secretary of the Mazdoor Panchayat that the contemplated strike would be illegal and advised them to refrain from it but that had no effect and as threatened in the notice, the workmen commenced the strike on 11th September, 1972. The modus operandi followed by the workmen was that they came to the mill and entered the working shed every day during their shift hours, but did not do any work and instead, held meetings and demonstrations, shouted slogans and threatened the supervisory and management staff. The strike was, according to the appellant, illegal for two reasons, One was that the strike was commenced during the pendency of adjudication Case No. 82 of 1971 before the Industrial Tribunal and the other was that the strike was in breach of cl. (2) of the Agreement dated 25th November, 1971 which was still in operation. All the workmen participated in the illegal strike, but out of them, there were fifty-three who, according to the appellant, led and incited the illegal strike and some out of these fifty-three, held meetings inside the mill premises without the previous written permission of the appellant and also shoute
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top