JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J. :- These appeals have been referred to the Constitution Bench in view of the apparent conflict of opinions expressed in three decisions of this Court - a three-Judge Bench decision in Management of Churakulam Tea Estate (P) Ltd. v. The Workmen, (1969) 1 SCR 931 and a two-Judge Bench decision in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1978) 3 SCC 155 on the one hand, and a two-Judge Bench decision in Bank of India v. T. S. Kelawala, (1990) 4 SCC 744 on the other. The question is whether workmen who proceed on strike, whether legal or illegal, are entitled to wages for the period of strike? In the first two caess, viz., Churakulam Tea Estate and Crompton Greaves (supra), the view taken is that the strike must be both legal and justified to entitle the workmen to the wages for the period of strike whereas the latter decision in T.S.Kelawala (supra) has taken the view that whether the strike is legal or illegal, the employees are not entitled to wages for the period of strike. To keep the record straight, it must be mentioned at the very outset that in the latter case, viz., T.S. Kelawala (supra) the question whether the strike was justified or not, was not raised and, therefore, the further question whether is justified, was neither discussed nor answered. Secondly, the first two decisions, viz., Churakulam Tea Estate (AIR 1969 SC 998) and Cromption Greaves (AIR 1978 SC 1489) (supra) were not cited at the Bar while deciding the said case and hence there was no occasion to consider the said decisions there. The decisions were not cited probably because the question of the justifiability or otherwise of the strike did not fall for consideration. It is, however, apparent from the earlier two decisions, viz., Churakulam Tea Estate and Crompton Greaves (supra) that the view taken there is not that the employees are entitled to wages for the strike-period merely because the strike is legal. The view is that for such entitlement the strike has both to be legal and justified. In other words, if the strike is illegal but justified or if the strike is legal but unjustified, the employees would not be entitled to the wages for the strike-period. Since the question whether the employees are entitled to wages, if the strike is justified, did not fall for consideration in the latter case, viz., in T.S.Kelawala (1990) (4) SCC 744), there is, as stated in the beginning, only an apparent conflict in the decisions.

2. Before we deal with the question, it is necessary to refer to the facts in the individual appeals.

C.A.No. 2710 of 1991

On 10th April, 1989, a memorandum of settlement was signed by the Indian Banks Association and the All India Bank Employees Unions including the National Confederation of Bank Employees as the fifth bipartite settlement. The appellant-Bank and the respondent-State Bank Staff Union through their respective Federations were bound by the said settlement. In terms of clauses 8(d) and 25 of the memorandum of the said settlement, the appellant-Bank and the respondent-Staff Union had to discuss and settle certain service conditions. Pursuant to these discussions, three settlements were entered into between the parties on 9th June, 1989. These settlements were under S.2 (p) read with S.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act.") Under these settlements, the employees of the appellant-Bank were entitled to certain advantages over and above those provided under the All India Bipartite Settlement of 10th April, 1989. The said benefits were to be given to the employees retrospectively with effect from 1st November, 1989. It appears that the appellant-Bank did not immediately implement the said settlement. Hence, the employees, Federation sent telex message to the appellant-Bank on 22nd June, 1989 calling upon it to implement the same without further loss of time. The message also stated that the employees would be compelled to launch agitation for implementation of the sett