1957 (10) TMI 21 - SC - Indian Laws

On account of the continued illegal stoppage of work, glow down tactics, and strikes indulged in by the workmen despite the advice of their Union, the appellant company issued a notice dated August 23, 1953, that in consequence of the illegal strike the Management has no option but to declare a lock-out of the entire works except the special shifts with effect from August 24, 953 The services of all other workers shall be deemed to be discharged with effect from August 24, 953. Subsequently, the company lifted the lock-out. and gave notice on September 17, 1953, to the effect that all employees on the Works rolls of the Company on August 23, 1953, and who wish to report for duty, must resume work on September 18, 1953 A third notice gave extension of time to the workmen to resume work. The question was whether the notice dated August 23, 1953, terminated the services of the respondents by discharging them with effect from August 24, 1953, and the notice dated September 17, 1953, merely gave them an opportunity of reemployment at the pleasure of the company on fulfilment of certain conditions - Held, that, on a construction of the notices, the expression shall be deemed to be discharged had to be read in the context of the declaration of a lock-out, and the intention of the company was that the employees whose employment bad been refused during the period of lock-out were to be permitted to resume work without any conditions if they reported for duty by a particular date, and on fulfilment of a condition if they reported for duty after that date. Where some of the workmen who were taken in custody by the police applied for leave when in custody but were refused leave by the company acting under Standing Order No. o, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal took the view that as the http //JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14 workmen were in custody the company was not justified in refusing leave, held, that whether in such circumstances leave should be granted or not must be left to the discretion of the employer, unless, it was proved, that it was a case of colourable or mala fide exercise of power under the Standing Order.

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of keeping workmen out of employment.
2. Entitlement of workmen to employment, relief, and/or compensation.
3. Justification of discharge and/or suspension of workmen.
4. Interpretation of notices issued by the Company.
5. Legality of lock-out and discharge.
6. Evaluation of evidence and findings by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Appellate Tribunal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Keeping Workmen Out of Employment:
The Company declared a lock-out on August 23, 1953, due to continued illegal stoppages of work and slow-down tactics by the workers. The notice stated that the services of all other workers shall be deemed to be discharged with effect from August 24, 1953. The lock-out was lifted on September 17, 1953, with a notice requiring employees to resume work by September 19, 1953, or by October 2, 1953, with satisfactory evidence of absence. The Tribunal found that the Company scrutinized the conduct of the workmen to determine their association with the Action Committee and took back some workmen while refusing others. The Tribunal held that the Company was not justified in keeping the workmen out of employment without any conditions if they reported for duty by the specified dates.

2. Entitlement of Workmen to Employment, Relief, and/or Compensation:
The Tribunal awarded reinstatement to the workmen who reported for duty by October 2, 1953, and granted half salary as compensation for the period from October 2, 1953, to the date of actual return to duties. The Tribunal found that the workmen were entitled to be taken back into employment without condition. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Company's appeal on merits and the workmen's appeal for full compensation on the ground that it did not involve any substantial question of law. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the workmen were entitled to be taken back as of right and without any condition.

3. Justification of Discharge and/or Suspension of Workmen:
The Tribunal classified the workmen into four categories: (1) those whose services were terminated for absence without permission for 14 consecutive days, (2) those dismissed for major misdemeanour, (3) those suspended but whose cases could not be disposed of finally, and (4) those dismissed for disobedience of orders and other activities in pursuance of a concerted plan of "go-slow" strike. The Tribunal ordered reinstatement of 25 out of 74 workmen and granted compensation to 24 of the workmen directed to be reinstated. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal misdirected itself regarding the true scope and effect of the Standing Order on absenteeism and held that the Company's decision to terminate the services of workmen absent without permission for 14 consecutive days was justified.

4. Interpretation of Notices Issued by the Company:
The Supreme Court held that the notices dated August 23, 1953, and September 17, 1953, did not terminate the services of the workmen but merely refused to employ them during the lock-out. The notices allowed the workmen to resume work without any conditions if they reported for duty by the specified dates. The Court found that the words used in the notices sufficiently and clearly brought out the Company's intention and did not require reference to other evidence in the record.

5. Legality of Lock-out and Discharge:
The Court did not pause to decide the questions of the illegal nature of the strike declared by the workmen and the legality of the lock-out declared by the Company, as it was unnecessary for the present appeals. The Court noted that the reluctance to pronounce on the conduct of the workmen prior to August 23, 1953, did not signify approval of that conduct.

6. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Appellate Tribunal:
The Court found that the Tribunal's decision regarding the seven workmen absent without leave for 14 consecutive days was erroneous and set aside the decision in respect of these workmen. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings regarding Samar Sen, Abharani Debi, and Himansu Chattoraj, stating that there were no exceptional or special circumstances or grave injustice to justify interference with the Tribunal's findings of fact. The Court dismissed the appeals of the Company and the workmen, except for the appeal concerning the seven workmen absent without leave, which was allowed.

Conclusion:
Civil Appeal No. 44, Civil Appeal No. 45, and Civil Appeal No. 337 were dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 336 was partly allowed, and the decision of the Tribunals below was set aside in respect of eight workmen. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →