9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in legal proceedings 2. Legitimacy of the strike and lock-out 3. Wages during the strike period 4. Provision of warm coats to subordinate staff 5. Canteen allowance for employees Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Legal Proceedings: The judgment highlights the protracted nature of the legal process, noting that the charter of demands was put forward in 1966, and it took nearly a decade for the case to be resolved. The court criticizes the slow pace, stating that "Such lingering legal machinery is by-passed by both sides in practice largely because, by sheer slow motion, it denies relief when needed and drives parties to seek remedies by direct action or political intervention." The court acknowledges that both the State Government and the Tribunal share the blame for the delay. 2. Legitimacy of the Strike and Lock-out: The court examines the legality of the strike and subsequent lock-out. The strike on September 20, 1966, was deemed illegal due to the pendency of certain proceedings before a Tribunal, making the lock-out that followed a legal defensive measure. However, the court notes that the management's refusal to lift the lock-out despite the workers' assurances of peaceful resumption of work was unreasonable. The court states, "If by subsequent conduct, imaginatively interpreted, the Unions have shown readiness to resume work peacefully, the refusal to restart the industry is not right and the initial legitimacy of the lock-out loses its virtue by this blemished sequel." 3. Wages During the Strike Period: The primary issue was whether the company should pay wages to employees during the strike period from September 20, 1966, to November 8, 1966. The Tribunal had directed the company to pay half the wages for this period, considering both parties were at fault. The court supports this decision, stating, "The Tribunal's view is certainly not unreasonable. Maybe, it is a just solution." The court emphasizes the importance of industrial peace and the need for both parties to act reasonably. 4. Provision of Warm Coats to Subordinate Staff: The court addresses the management's grievance against the Tribunal's direction to supply warm coats to all subordinate staff. The court finds no reasonable basis for the management's selective provision of warm coats and supports the Tribunal's decision, stating, "Calcutta cold does not spare either category and therefore no climatic distinction can be made between the two." 5. Canteen Allowance for Employees: The court also addresses the issue of canteen allowance, where the staff of the officers' canteen were receiving a dietary allowance of 50 paise per working day, but the employees of the staff canteen were not. The court finds this discriminatory and supports the Tribunal's direction to provide the allowance to all canteen staff, stating, "There is no reasonable basis for this invidious treatment." Conclusion: The court ultimately dismisses the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's award. The judgment emphasizes the need for both management and workers to act reasonably and in good faith to maintain industrial peace. The court also acknowledges the thorough preparation and assistance provided by the amicus curiae in the case.
|
