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

2008 Supreme(SC) 605

2008(2) Supreme 775
Supreme Court of india
(From Madras High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Management, Essorpe Mills Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2567 of 2006
Decided on : 04-04-2008

Important Point
There would be deemed conciliation only if there is a valid notice u/s 22.

Headnote:(a)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 33 – No conciliation proceeding being pending at the time of dismissal of workmen, Section 33 will not be attracted and there is no question of seeking permission of the Conciliation Officer in such a case – Order of dismissal not illegal. (Paras 5 and 6)

       (b)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11 – The Conciliation officer, unlike the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, has no power of adjudication – Therefore, he cannot set aside the order of dismissal – The dismissal remains valid. (Para 7)

       (c)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 22 – Deemed conciliation – Concept of deemed conciliation has been statutorily provided in the case of public utility service so that workmen did not go on strike during pendency of the conciliation proceedings – When strike notice under Section 22 of the Act has been given, the Conciliation Officer is mandatorily required to hold the conciliation proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act – The purpose of providing for deemed conciliation is to prevent dislocation of public utility service. (Paras 9 and 10)

       (d)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 22 – Instead of the stipulated six weeks’ notice for strike, respondents giving only 10 days notice – Thus there was no valid notice and therefore no deemed conciliation proceeding could be inferred – Impugned High Court judgment held not sustainable. (Paras 18 and 20)

       (2002)2 SCC 244 – Distinguished.

       (1999) 6 SCC 275 – Distinguished impliedly.

       Facts of the case:

       1.Respondents 2 to 23 went on illegal strike from 8.11.1990. Other workmen followed.

       2.All the 55 workers who resorted to strike were suspended and charged for mis-conduct. Out of them 34 apologized and they were taken back into service. Subsequently, three more also apologized and they too were allowed to join duty.

       3.On 14.3.1991 the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Panchalai Workers’ Union served a strike notice on the management stating that “strike would commence on or after 24.3.1991".

       4.On 8th and 24th April and 13th May, 1991 the respondents 2 to 23 were dismissed from service after holding a disciplinary enquiry.

        5.Petitions were filed for re-instatement with back wages and continuity of service.

       6.The Labour Court held that the strike was illegal. However, the Labour Court substituted the punishment of dismissal by order of discharge and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each workman.

       7.The award was challenged by the appellant as well as the workmen before the High Court. Writ Petition filed by the respondents 2 to 23 was allowed.

       8.The appellant’s Writ Petition against the alteration of punishment was dismissed.

       9.By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals.

       Findings of the Court :

       There was no valid notice in terms of section 22.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Writ Appeals filed by the appellant.

2.Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows :

Respondents 2 to 23 went on illegal strike from 8.11.1990. Respondent No.15 and one S.L. Sundaram who had died in the meantime were the first to strike work in the blow room resulting in the stoppage of entire operation of the appellant’s textile mills. Other workmen followed. All the 55 workers who resorted to strike were suspended. Even after their suspension, respondents 2 to 17 remained in the premises causing obstruction. All the 55 workers were charged for mis-conduct. Out of them 34 apologized and they were taken back into service. But subsequently, three more also apologized and they too were allowed to join duty. The respondents 2 to 23, however, did not relent. On 14.3.1991 the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Panchalai Workers’ Union served a strike notice on the management purportedly under Section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) stating that “strike would commence on or after 24.3.1991" and on 8th and 24th April and 13th May, 1991 the respondents 2 to 23 were dismissed from service after holding a disciplinary enquiry. Petitions were filed under Section 2-A of the Act for re-instatement with back wages and continuity of service. The Labour Court by its award dated 24.1.1994 held that the strike was illegal. However, in purported exercise of powers under Section 11-A of the Act the Labour Court substituted the punishment of dismissal by order of discharge and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each workman. The award was challenged by the appellant as well as the workmen before the High Court. On 5.8.2000 a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition No.8389 of 1995 filed by the respondents 2 to 23 on the ground of non compliance of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act and directed re-instatement of the workmen with full back wages and continuity of service. He took the view that a copy of the strike notice dated 14.3.1991 was sent to the conciliation Officer and, therefore, conciliation proceedings were pending on the date of dismissal and since the dismissal was without the approval of the Conciliation Officer in terms of Section 33 of the Act the same was illegal. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. V. Ram Gopal Sharma,1 (2002 (2) SCC 244). The appellant’s Writ Petition No.10239 of 1999 against the alteration of punishment was dismissed. On 30.12.2003 by the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals holding that the judgment of this Court did not make any distinction between the proceeding pending before the Conciliation Officer and those pending before an Industrial Tribunal.

3.On 21.2.2004 the Special Leave Petitions were filed and when the matter came up for hearing on 20.3.2006 after notice, a Bench of this Court suggested certain terms for amicable settlement as set out in the order of said date. The appellant agreed to the terms proposed, but the respondents 2 to 23 did not agree.

4.The basic stand of the appellant is as follows :

The High Court failed to appreciate that in the absence of a valid notice of strike in terms of Section 22(1) there can be no commencement of conciliation proceedings in terms of Section 20(1) of the Act. Section 22(1) prohibits a strike in a public utility service, in breach of contract, without giving to the employer advance notice of six weeks. It prohibits strike (a) within the notice period of six weeks, (b) within 14 days of giving such notice, (c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in such a notice, (d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. The strike notice issued on 14-3-1




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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