1960 (1) TMI 54 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the lock-out declared by the management of Itakhoolie Tea Estate.
2. Entitlement of workmen to compensation during the lock-out period.
3. Interpretation of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Workmen's entitlement to compensation post their refusal to attend conciliation proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the lock-out
The dispute arose when the management declared a lock-out at Itakhoolie Tea Estate due to laborers' indiscipline. The Industrial Tribunal found the lock-out unjustified, as it punished all laborers for the actions of a few. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that challenging a finding affecting relief granted is not permissible. The Supreme Court rejected the management's appeal, as the finding was factual, not a substantial question of law, and thus not appealable.

Issue 2: Compensation for workmen during lock-out
The Industrial Tribunal directed wages for the day 402 workmen reported for duty during the lock-out. Additionally, dues for women-laborers and men-laborers were ordered to be paid. The Appellate Tribunal granted compensation to all workmen for the lock-out period, as it deemed the lock-out unjustified. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, dismissing the management's appeal against compensating all workmen during the lock-out.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Order XLI, Rule 22
The management contended that they could support the Appellate Tribunal's decision under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court discussed conflicting interpretations of this rule but concluded that even if the management could support the decision, it did not entitle them to succeed in the appeal against compensating workmen during the lock-out.

Issue 4: Workmen's refusal to attend conciliation proceedings
The workmen's representative declined to participate in conciliation proceedings post-September 17, 1952. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the argument that this refusal barred workmen from compensation post this date. The Supreme Court agreed, stating the assumption that conciliation would have resolved the dispute was speculative and not a valid ground for denying compensation. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the entitlement of workmen to compensation during the entire lock-out period.