1959 (10) TMI 40 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the dismissal of eight specific workers.
2. Justification of the dismissal and/or suspension of 260 workers at Dhubri Ghat.
3. Legality and justification of the strike and subsequent lock-out.
4. Preliminary objections to the maintainability and competence of the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Dismissal of Eight Specific Workers:
The Tribunal examined the individual cases of the eight workers and concluded that their dismissals were unjustified. For Manzoor Hussain, Sudama Singh, Idrish, and Tazmal Hussain, the Tribunal found that the assault charges against them were not proven, as they were acquitted by a Magistrate. The Tribunal held that their dismissals were possibly to intimidate other workers. For Panchu Shah and Ram Ekbal Singh, the Tribunal found their dismissals to be acts of victimization and mala fide. However, for Jahangir Sardar and Keayamat Hussain, the Tribunal's finding was erroneous as it overlooked the detailed charge-sheets issued to them. The Tribunal misdirected itself by questioning the sufficiency of proof, which was not its role. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissals of Jahangir Sardar and Keayamat Hussain but confirmed the reinstatement of the other six workers.

2. Justification of the Dismissal and/or Suspension of 260 Workers at Dhubri Ghat:
The Tribunal held that the strike was illegal but justified, a position the Supreme Court found contradictory. The Tribunal's view that the lock-out was illegal was also incorrect as per Section 24(3) of the Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that an illegal strike could not be justified and that the punishment for participating in such a strike should be modulated based on the gravity of the workers' actions. The Supreme Court found that the inquiry conducted by the appellants was fundamentally flawed due to the absence of individual charge-sheets. The Court distinguished between peaceful and violent strikers and decided that only those who participated in violence or obstructed work should face severe punishment. The Court modified the Tribunal's order, stating that the workmen should receive half their wages for the period between the end of the strike and the enforcement of the Award.

3. Legality and Justification of the Strike and Subsequent Lock-out:
The Tribunal and the Supreme Court agreed that the strike was illegal under Section 22 of the Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that the strike was justified. The Supreme Court criticized the Tribunal's language and approach, finding no evidence of unfair labor practices by the appellants. The Tribunal's conclusion that the lock-out was illegal was also incorrect. The Supreme Court noted that the lock-out might have been unjustified after the strike was called off but was not illegal. The Court emphasized the need to differentiate between peaceful and violent strikers when determining punishment.

4. Preliminary Objections to the Maintainability and Competence of the Appeal:
The respondents raised three preliminary objections: no appeal lies, the appellants did not exhaust statutory remedies under Section 17A of the Act, and the appeal was not competent without the Government of Assam as a party. The Supreme Court rejected all three objections. The Court held that the provisions of the Act are subject to the Constitution, specifically Article 136, which allows for special leave to appeal. The Court also found that the Government of Assam was not a necessary party to the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the order of reinstatement for Jahangir Sardar and Keayamat Hussain, and the 37 workmen convicted under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court modified the Tribunal's order for full back wages, reducing the amount by half for the period between the end of the strike and the enforcement of the Award. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.