The distinction between strikes during the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal and after the conclusion of such proceedings, and the general prohibition on strikes during the pendency of proceedings, is a key legal principle established in the judgment.

HARRIES, C.J. :- This is a petition for revision of an order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting the ten petitioners of an offence under S. 26, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25. In default of payment of the fine it was provided that each should undergo a period of seven days imprisonment.

2. The ten petitioners were employees of Messrs Lloyd Bank Limited, and were employed at the Head Office and the Chowringhee Office of the Bank. Disputes had arisen between the Bank and its employees and on 17th January 1948, these disputes were referred to the adjudication of a Tribunal under S. 10(1)(c), Industrial Disputes Act [XIV [14] of 1947].

3. Before these proceedings had terminated the ten petitioners together with other employees of the Bank went on a one-day strike on 17th August 1948. This one-day strike admittedly had nothing to do with the disputes which had been referred to the adjudication of a Tribunal under the Act. The one-day strike was a strike to express sympathy with certain employees of the Central Bank of India who were themselves on strike.

4. Sanction from the Provincial Government was obtained and a prosecution was instituted against eleven persons for striking contrary to the provisions of S. 26 and further for instigating others to strike. The case came before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who held that there was no evidence upon which the eleven persons could be convicted of an offence of instigating others to strike. He, however, held that the eleven persons were guilty of an offence under S. 26, convicted them and sentenced them, as I have indicated. Of those eleven persons ten persons have petitioned this Court in revision.

5. The prosecution was under S. 26(1), Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. The sub-section is in these terms :

Any workman who commences, continues or otherwise acts in furtherance of, a strike which is illegal under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, or with both.

6. Section 24(1) provides :

A strike or a lock-out shall be illegal if-(i) it is commenced or declared in contravention of S. 22 or S. 23; or (ii) it is continued in contravention of an order made under Sub-s. (3) of S. 10.

7. It is common ground that if this strike was illegal, it could only be illegal by reason of the provisions of S. 23(b) of the Act.

8. Section 23 is in these terms :

No workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and no employer of any such workman shall declare a lock-out (a) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Board and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings; or (b) during the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal and two months after the conclusion of such proceedings; or (c) during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award.

9. It will be seen from this section that no workman employed in any industrial establishment can go on strike in breach of his contract during the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal and two months after the conclusion of such proceedings.

10. On behalf of the prosecution it was urged before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate that on the day this strike took place there were proceedings pending before a Tribunal and therefore the strike was illegal, as being contrary to S. 23(b) of the Act in that it was a strike during the pendency of such proceedings.

11. Mr. Atul Gupta who has appeared on behalf of nine of the petitioners has conceded that if the words of S. 23(b) are taken literally then a case can be made oat for the prosecution. He has, however, urged that no offence is committed under S. 23(b) unless the strike in breach of contract is connected with the dispute then pending before the Tribuna