Back
1958 Supreme(Raj) 104
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.N.Wanchoo,I.N.Modi
SADUL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
WORKMEN OF SADUL TEXTILE MILLS - Respondent
Civil Writ Case 121 Of 1957
Decided On : 04/01/1958
Badridas Sharma, P.N.DUTT
A stay-in strike is an invasion of the employer's property rights and cannot be justified, even without violence or sabotage. A strike that violates standing orders and involves misconduct by all participating workers is unjustified.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - STRIKE - JUSTIFICATION - STAY-IN STRIKE - UNJUSTIFIED - STANDING ORDERS - VIOLATION - MISCONDUCT - NO NOTICE - NO JUSTIFICATION - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - ERROR OF LAW - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
A stay-in strike was staged by workers of a textile mill in protest against lay-offs and transfer of union workers from one shift to another. The strike was declared unjustified by the Industrial Tribunal, except for the period from 14th to 16th October, when a telegram from the Labour Commissioner was received by the Union, recommending referral of the lay-off dispute to the Tribunal. The management challenged the Tribunal's order, arguing that the strike was unjustified from the outset due to violation of standing orders and the nature of the stay-in strike.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the strike was unjustified from the beginning and the workers were not entitled to any relief. The Court found three errors of law in the Tribunal's judgment: (1) A stay-in strike, by its very nature, is an invasion of the employer's property rights and cannot be justified, even without violence or sabotage. (2) The strike was a lightning strike, in violation of the standing orders, and all workers participating in it were guilty of misconduct, making the strike unjustified. (3) The Tribunal erred in distinguishing between the justification of the strike before and after the Labour Commissioner's telegram, as the Labour Officer's earlier assurance to the Union had the same effect.
Issues: 1. Whether a stay-in strike can be justified under any circumstances. 2. Whether a strike that violates standing orders and involves misconduct by all participating workers can be justified. 3. Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in finding the strike justified for a certain period based on a telegram from the Labour Commissioner, when an earlier assurance by the Labour Officer had the same effect.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A stay-in strike is an invasion of the employer's property rights and cannot be justified, even without violence or sabotage. 2. A strike that violates standing orders and involves misconduct by all participating workers is unjustified. 3. The Industrial Tribunal erred in distinguishing between the justification of the strike before and after the Labour Commissioner's telegram, as the Labour Officer's earlier assurance to the Union had the same effect.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal's order awarding wages to the workers for the period of 14th to 16th October and held that the strike was unjustified from the beginning to the end.
K. N. WANCHOO, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Shri Sadul Textile mills Ltd. , Sri Ganganagar challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal, rajasthan dated the 15-4-1957.
( 2 ) THE facts which have led to the present petition are these. The applicant is a public limited company having its registered office at Sri Ganganagar and runs a textile mill there. This mill was being supplied electric energy by the Government power House. In April 1954 the company received a notice from the Collector Sri ganganagar with respect to certain electric charges due from the company to the power House for supply of electric energy. The applicant disputed the correctness of the charges and this matter was fixed before the Collector for decision for the 25-8-1954. But on the 15-8-1954 the company received a telegram from the Government of Rajasthan intimating that if the dues were not paid before the 20-8-1954, electric supply would be cut off from the 20th of August. Thereupon a representation was made by the company on the 19th of August protesting against the threatened unjustified disconnection of the power supply and requesting the Government to defer action until the representation of the applicant was decided. The electric supply, however, was cut off on the midnight between the 19th and 20th of August 1954. The result of this was that the applicant had to lay off its workers of the second and third shifts of the mill on the 20-8-1954. In the meantime, efforts were made to make arrangements for supply of power by other means and eventually the major part of the working was restarted within a few days. Even so, the company had to lay off some workers on account of shortage of power and paid compensation according to the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act. This led to discontent among the workers and the dispute between the applicant and its workers, who are the first respondent before us, was referred by the Government of Rajasthan for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal on 111-1954. In the meantime, however, there was trouble in the mill. What happened was that some workers, in order to avoid lay off, asked for transfer from one shift to another. The applicant agreed to their request and in doing so, transferred certain workers who were said to be active in the Labour Union of the Mill from one shift to another, on the 11-10-1954. There was, however, no change in the conditions of service of the workers who were so transferred from one shift to another. This led to protests and it is said that the Labour Officer intervened. The applicant then promised to retransfer these workers to their original shift as soon as possible; but in spite of this promise, the workers struck work from, the shift beginning at 5 p. m. on 13-10-1954. This strike took place without giving notice of 14 days as provided by standing order No. 23. The Labour Officer had already intervened in the matter and on the 15th of october, the Labour Commissioner sent a telegram to the Labour Union informing them that the dispute regarding lay off was recommended to be referred to the industrial Tribunal and advising the Union to call off the strike immediately. In spite of this telegram, the workers continued their strike till a settlement was arrived at through the efforts of the Labour Officer on 22-10-1954 and work was resumed unconditionally on the 22nd of October.
( 3 ) THE Government referred the dispute as regards lay of to the Industrial Tribunal on 1-11-1954. That matter was decided by the Tribunal in October 1955 and the applicants stand in the matter of lay off was upheld. In the meantime, another dispute arose between the workers and the applicant about the wages for the strike period from 13th to 22-10-1954. This dispute was referred in turn to the industrial Tribunal by the Government on 20-1-1955. For some reason which is not clear, this dispute was not decided along with the dispute relating
