Back
1961 Supreme(P&H) 156
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.L.Gosain, J.
Matchwel Electricals India Ltd
Versus
Chief Commissioner
Decided On : AUGUST 30, 1961
A strike is not illegal unless it falls within the purview of Sections 22 to 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 22 TO 25 - STRIKE - LEGALITY - POLITICAL STRIKE - MOTIVE OF VICTIMIZATION - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company dismissed six workers for participating in a political strike. The industrial tribunal found that the strike was unjustified but not illegal and that the dismissals were actuated by motives of victimization. It ordered the reinstatement of the workers but disallowed their claims for back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the strike was not illegal as it did not fall within the purview of Sections 22 to 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It also found that the dismissals were actuated by motives of victimization and that the penalty of dismissal was too severe in the circumstances of the case. The court, therefore, upheld the award of the industrial tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the strike was illegal? 2. Whether the dismissals were actuated by motives of victimization? 3. Whether the penalty of dismissal was too severe?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A strike is a legitimate weapon in the armoury of the workmen. 2. A strike is illegal only if it falls within the purview of Sections 22 to 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The strike in question was not illegal as it did not fall within the purview of Sections 22 to 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The dismissals were actuated by motives of victimization as the six workers were singled out for punishment because they held important positions in the union. 5. The penalty of dismissal was too severe in the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the award of the industrial tribunal.
Gosain, J.
1. This petition under Article 225 of the Constitution of India by Matchwel Electricals (India), Limited, is directed against an award of the industrial tribunal, Delhi, dated 26 February 1960, and seeks to have the same set aside.
2. The petitioner company at the relevant time carried on business, inter alia, of manufacturing electric fans and had a factory near the tram terminus, Subzimandi, Delhi. On 1 August 1959, when the Ministry in the State of Kerala was dismissed and the Governors Rule promulgated there, the workmen of the petitioner company, as also the workmen of various other industries, struck work, presumably to protest against the intervention of the Central Government in Kerala affairs. The strike ended the same day and although all other workers were permitted by the petitioner company to resume duty, six of them, namely. (1) Satpal Sharma, (2) Madan Gopal Anand, (3) Jaswant Singh, (4) Sher Singh, (5) Dhani Ram, and (6) Joginder Singh, were not so permitted. The management passed orders of suspension qua these six persons and later by means of a communication, dated 27 August 1959, charge-sheeted all these six persons.
3. A letter, containing precisely the same charges, was sent to each of them and reads as under: With reference to your letter?you are informed that you were guilty of misconduct in so far as you were a party to a well-planned strike of the workers of the establishment on August 1959 inasmuch as you yourself abstained from work and incited others to similarly abstain from work which was connected with your political activities and had no connexion whatever with the dispute with the management or the conditions of service. The said conduct on your part amounts to a major misdemeanour within the meaning of Clause (k) of standing Order 13 of the standing orders inasmuch the abstention from work was a breach of contract to carry on work regularly and was resorted to during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer, Delhi. It has been decided to hold the enquiry into the allegations and you are required to appear before a three-man enquiry committee consisting of Sri R. P. Mehrotra, Sri M. L. Chawla and Sri D. R. Dhir on 31 August 1959 at factory premises with all material evidence which you propose to rely for the purpose. If you do not appear before the said enquiry, the enquiry would be proceeded with ex parte against you.
4. An enquiry was thereafter held by a board consisting of three members of the management and as a result of the said enquiry, the management of the petitioner company came to the conclusion that all the aforesaid persons were guilty of major misdemeanour in having indulged in activities which were illegal and subversive of discipline. By means of order passed on 12 October 1959, the petitioner company dismissed all of them and made the order of dismissal to operate retrospectively from 1 August 1959. This led to an industrial dispute between the petitioner company on the one hand and its workmen on the other, and this was referred by the Government for adjudication to the industrial tribunal by means of Notification No. F.10 (268)/59-I and L, dated 31 December 1959.
5. The terms of reference as mentioned in the said notification were as under: Whether the following workmen should be reinstated with full back wages and to what relief they are entitled?--
(1) Satpal Sharma. (2) Sher Singh. (3) Madan Gopal Anand. (4) Dhani Ram. (5) Jaswant Singh. (6) Joginder Singh.
6. After a complete trial of the matter, the industrial tribunal came to the conclusion that the strike, in which the aforesaid respondents had participated, could not be termed as an illegal strike as envisaged by Sections 22 to 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act but that It was an unjustified strike. It further found that the order of dismissal was actuated by motives of victimization and that in the circumstances of the case, it was far too severe a punishment. In th
