Back
1994 Supreme(Bom) 741
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S.H. Kapadia, J.
ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK PLC., BOMBAY - Appellant
Vs.
S.N. KHATRI AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 92 of 1992
Decided on : 07-12-1994
In public utility services, strikes, if found to be illegal, question of justifiability does not arise.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 22 - STRIKE - LEGALITY - JUSTIFIABILITY - PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE - BANKING INDUSTRY - STRIKE NOTICE - FORM AND ADDRESS - CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS - COMMENCEMENT AND CONCLUSION - ILLEGAL STRIKE - CURING OF ILLEGALITY - MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971 - SECTION 24 - SECTION 25 - U.L.P. ACT - DISTINCTION - SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN SYNDICATE BANK'S CASE - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Grindlays Bank challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal directing the Bank to pay 50% of the strike wages to the employees for the period 5th November, 1979 upto 4th February, 1980. The Tribunal held that the strike was illegal but justified and awarded 50% of the wages for the said period. The Bank contended that the strike was illegal and the Tribunal erred in holding that substantial compliance with the form of the strike notice would be sufficient. The Federation contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank's case, which held that in public utility services, strikes, if found to be illegal, question of justifiability does not arise, was not applicable to the facts of the case as Grindlays Bank was a private sector bank and not a public undertaking.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the strike which commenced on 5th November 1979 was illegal as it had commenced before expiry of 14 days' of giving of the strike notice dated 22nd October 1979 and before conclusion of the conciliation proceedings. The Court also held that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that substantial compliance while giving the strike notice, particularly with regard to the form of the strike notice, would be sufficient and that the provisions of Sections 20 and 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act are not mandatory, particularly with regard to the form of the strike notice. The Court further held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank's case was applicable to the facts of the present case and that once a strike is held to be illegal, question of justifiability does not arise.
Issues: 1. Whether the strike which commenced on 5th November 1979 was illegal? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that substantial compliance while giving the strike notice, particularly with regard to the form of the strike notice, would be sufficient? 3. Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank's case was applicable to the facts of the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the strike which commenced on 5th November 1979 was illegal as it had commenced before expiry of 14 days' of giving of the strike notice dated 22nd October 1979 and before conclusion of the conciliation proceedings. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prohibits a person employed in a public utility service from going on strike in breach of contract within 14 days of giving such notice or during pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and 7 days after conclusion of such proceedings. 2. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that substantial compliance while giving the strike notice, particularly with regard to the form of the strike notice, would be sufficient. The Court held that the provisions of Section 20 and Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act are mandatory, particularly with regard to the form of the strike notice. The Court relied on Rule 71 of the Central Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prescribes the form of the strike notice. 3. The Court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank's case was applicable to the facts of the present case. The Court held that Grindlays Bank was a public utility service and that the strike was in breach of the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that once a strike is held to be illegal, question of justifiability does not arise.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 1st November 1991 in Reference C.G.I.T. No. 11/89 and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Federation.
JUDGMENT :
S.H. Kapadia, J.
1. By this writ petition, Grindlays Bank seeks to challenge Award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 1st November, 1991 in Reference No. CGIT-11/1989 by which the Industrial Tribunal directed the Bank to pay 50% of the strike wages to the employees of the Bank for the period 5th November, 1979 upto 4th February, 1980. By the impugned Award, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the strike was illegal. However, on facts of the case, the Industrial Tribunal went into the justifiability of the strike and came to the conclusion that the strike was justified and, therefore, awarded 50% of the wages for the said period 5th November, 1979 upto 4th February 1980. The above Writ Petition No. 92 of 1992 is filed by the Bank. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 92 of 1992, the Federation preferred Writ Petition No. 2551 of 1994 challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the strike was illegal. The said Writ Petition No. 2551 of 1994 is filed by the Federation, inter alia, on the footing that during the pendency of the earlier writ petition filed by the Bank, the Supreme Court has laid down a decision for the first time in the case of Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, (reported in 1994 2 CLR 753 in which it has been held that a strike in a Public Utility Service, if held to be illegal, then the question of justifiability did not arise. If the strike is both legal and justified, the workers are entitled to wages for the strike period, but where the strike is illegal although justified, the workers are not entitled to wages for the strike period. In other words, strike has to be both legal and justified. In the above circumstances, the Federation preferred Writ Petition No. 2551 of 1994, challenging the Award of the Tribunal to the extent to which it has been held that the strike was illegal although justified. Accordingly, both the above writ petitions are heard together and disposed of the a common judgment. At the outset, it may be mentioned that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank's case (supra), the controversy before me has been narrowed down. As stated above, in the aforesaid Judgment, the Supreme Court had clearly laid down, after considering the earlier Cases Laws dealing with strikes in Public Utility services, that the workers who seek wages for the strike period are required to prove that the strike is legal and justified; where the strike is illegal, but justified they are not entitled to wages for the period of strike. It is also laid down in the above judgment that the question of justifiability of a strike is to be decided by the Industrial Ad judicature under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the Industrial Tribunal had held that the strike was illegal, particularly because, it had commenced in violation of provisions of Section 22(1)(b) and Section 22(1)(d) of the said Act, 1947.
2. The facts of this case, briefly, are as following Petitioner-Bank is a Banking Company as defined u/s 2(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has 56 branches in India. It employs approximately 3000 workers in India. On 16th September 1970, petitioners arrived at a settlement with All India Grindlays Bank Employees' Federation (hereinafter referred to as, 'the said Federation'). On 3rd July 1975, the Federation passed a Resolution that items covered by the above settlement of 16th September 1970 should be once again raised and demanded. Pursuant to the said demand on 15th September, 1975, settlement was arrived at between petitioners and the Federation for bonus for the years 1974-1975. However the Bonus Act 1975, was amended by the Parliament. The Banks were taken out of the purview of the said Act by the amendment. On 1st October 1975, the Reserve Bank of India addressed a letter to the petitioner-bank directing the Bank not to make payment of bonus under the above settlement. On 22nd February 1978,
