1964 (3) TMI 83 - SC - Companies Law

Whether s. 42(1)(g) of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes and Settlement Act 1947 prohibits an employer from taking action against a workman for participation in an illegal strike before it is so declared under s. 41 of the Act? Whether in an application made under s. 16(3) of the Act the Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the legality or illegality of the strike? Held that - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of s. 42(1)(g) of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes and Settlement Act, 1947 regarding employer's action against a workman for participation in an illegal strike.
2. Jurisdiction of the Labour Commissioner to decide the legality or illegality of a strike under s. 16(3) of the Act.

Interpretation of s. 42(1)(g):
The case involved determining whether an employer could take action against a workman for participating in an illegal strike before it was officially declared illegal under s. 41 of the Act. The appellant argued that the phrase "rendered illegal" in s. 42(1)(g) should be construed as "held illegal," implying that the employer could only act after a formal declaration of illegality by the State Industrial Court or District Industrial Court. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the provision was intentionally distinct from other sections using the term "held illegal." The Court reasoned that waiting for a formal declaration could cause undue delay and uncertainty for employers, especially since the mentioned authorities were not obligated to provide a decision promptly. Therefore, the Court concluded that the employer could take action as soon as they believed the strike fell within the Act's definition of illegality.

Jurisdiction of the Labour Commissioner:
Regarding the Labour Commissioner's jurisdiction under s. 16(3) to decide the legality of a strike, the appellant contended that only the State Industrial Court or District Industrial Court had the authority to determine the legality of a strike under s. 41. The argument suggested that having multiple bodies with jurisdiction over the same matter would lead to conflicting decisions. However, the Court found this argument problematic due to the discretionary nature of decisions by the State Industrial Court or District Industrial Court, which might choose not to decide on the legality of a strike. Consequently, the Court held that the Labour Commissioner had the jurisdiction to determine the legality or illegality of a strike when raised in an application under s. 16(3) of the Act.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the employer could take action against a workman for participating in an illegal strike without waiting for a formal declaration of illegality. Additionally, the Court clarified that the Labour Commissioner had the jurisdiction to decide on the legality or illegality of a strike when raised in an application under s. 16(3) of the Act.