Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Misra and Banerji JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Deodar Jha
Government Appeal No. 19 of 1953 ;
Decided On : MARCH 22, 1957
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 22, 23, 24, 26 - STRIKE - LOCK-OUT - ILLEGAL STRIKE - PENALTY - COMPLAINT - EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT - IRREGULARITY - ACQUITTAL - INTERFERENCE BY APPELLATE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The Patna Electric Supply Company, Limited (the Company) was involved in a dispute with its workers, represented by the Patna Electric Supply Workers Union (the Union). During the pendency of the dispute before an Industrial Tribunal, one Ramdeo Rai, an employee of the Company, was suspended for alleged riotous acts. The Union demanded his reinstatement and other concessions, and threatened a token strike if their demands were not met. The Company informed the Union that such a strike would be illegal. Despite this, the Union called a token strike for 24 hours, which was joined by a large number of workers, including the respondents. The Company filed a complaint against the respondents for illegal strike under Section 26 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). The Magistrate acquitted the respondents, holding that there was a lock-out by the Company, that the strike was not illegal, and that the accused persons were not guilty of the charge levelled against them. The State appealed against the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the strike was illegal as it was in contravention of Section 22(1)(b) of the Act, which prohibits strikes during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and for 14 days thereafter. The Court also held that the suspension of Ramdeo Rai did not amount to a lock-out, as it was a disciplinary measure taken with a view to terminate his employment. The Court further held that the failure to examine the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was an irregularity, but it did not vitiate the proceedings as the complainant had filed a written complaint and the Government had sanctioned the prosecution. The Court also rejected the argument that the case should have been dismissed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the absence of the complainant on certain dates, as the Magistrate had exercised his discretion in adjourning the hearing.
Issues: 1. Whether the strike was illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the suspension of Ramdeo Rai amounted to a lock-out? 3. Whether the failure to examine the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the proceedings? 4. Whether the case should have been dismissed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the absence of the complainant on certain dates?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A strike is illegal if it is in contravention of Section 22(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prohibits strikes during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and for 14 days thereafter. 2. The suspension of an employee does not amount to a lock-out, as it is a disciplinary measure taken with a view to terminate the employment. 3. The failure to examine the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an irregularity, but it does not vitiate the proceedings if the complainant has filed a written complaint and the Government has sanctioned the prosecution. 4. The Magistrate has the discretion to adjourn the hearing of a case under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the absence of the complainant, and the High Court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless it is manifestly unfair.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal and convicted five of the respondents for illegal strike under Section 26 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court dismissed the appeal with respect to the other respondents.
Banerji, J.
1. This appeal under Sec. 417, Criminal Procedure Code, is against an order of acquittal passed by Mr. S. C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in a trial under Sec.26, Sub-section (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947).
2. The facts culminating in the trial of the 25 respondents and their subsequent acquittal may be summarised as follows:-
-
There is a Limited Company, known as the Patna Electric Supply Company, Limited, (henceforth to be described as the Company) for supply of electricity to the people at Patna, and the head of the local management in 1952 was Sri A. V. Ramaswami (P. W. 1). The workers of this Company have their own Union, known as the Patna Electric Supply Workers Union, (hereafter to be described as the Union) with one Sri Ranen Ray as the President and Sri Damodar Jha as the General Secretary.
In March 1952, the Union made certain written demands and, in due course Government referred the disputes to a Tribunal for adjudication. The notification by which the Industrial Tribunal was constituted is dated the 29th of March, 1952, and has been marked as Exhibit 9. Annexure "A" shows the nature of the dispute between the Company and the workers under it.
3. When this adjudication was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, one Ramdeo Rai, an employee of the Company, was suspended by Sri Ramaswami (P. W. 1) for wilful disobedience of his order which was to the effect that he should allow three other workers to live in the same room. Suspension of Ramdeo Rai by the Company was communicated to Sri R. N. Sharma (P. W. 32), then Assistant Commissioner of Labour. P. W. 12 was approached on behalf of the Union and was told that Ramdeos suspension was unjustified.
The Union requested P. W. 12 to intervene in the matter and make an enquiry. Accordingly, P. W. 12 fixed the 20th of November. 1952 for making a local enquiry and informed the Company as well as the Union. During the enquiry, P. W. 12 saw an altercation going on between two sets of workers. It appears that some workmen took up the cause of Ramdeo and some of the other three who had complained against him for having thrown them out of the room.
There was exchange of hot words between the two parties in the presence of P.W. 12 followed by an exchange of blows and hurling of shoes. A workmen was hit with a bamboo stick, hurled by some one Finding that the position was out of control, P.W. 12 informed the Police Station nearby and also submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. He, further, informed the Company of the facts which had taken place in his presence.
4. P. W. 1, in the meantime had also received two reports from the Assistant Mains Engineer (P. W. 3) and the Mains Superintendent (P. W. 2) regarding the occurrence of the 20th of November, 1952. P. W. 1, accordingly, took disciplinary action against Ramdeo and a few others who were reported against by P. Ws. 2 and 3 and suspended them forthwith. He, then, applied to the Industrial Tribunal for necessary permission to dismiss these workers as adjudication proceedings were pending in its Court. The workmen concerned also filed petitions before the Tribunal under Sec.33A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. On the 26th of November, 1952, P.W.1 received a notice Signed by the General Secretary of the Union intimating him that the employees of the Company proposed to go on a token strike from 8 a. m., on the 29th of November, 1952, to 8 a. m., on the 30th of November 1952, unless their demands were fulfilled. Their demands were in the nature of redress of allegd victimisation of Ramdeo Rai and three others who, as already stated, had been suspended by P. W. 1 for alleged riotous acts.
The demand was for the restoration of their jobs with retrospective effect and also for concession of pending demands other than those referred to the Tribunal by the notification (exhibit 3). P. W. 1 replied to the notice pointing out that the treatend token strike woul
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
