9911796707
TMI Blog1949 (9) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther with other employees of the Bank went on a one-day strike on 17th August 1948. This one-day strike admittedly had nothing to do with the disputes which had been referred to the adjudication of a Tribunal under the Act. The one-day strike was a strike to express sympathy with certain employees of the Central Bank of India who were themselves on strike. 4. Sanction from the Provincial Government was obtained and a prosecution was instituted against eleven persons for striking contrary to the provisions of Section 26 and further for instigating others to strike. The case came before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who held that there was no evidence upon which the eleven persons could be convicted of an offence of instigating others to strike. He, however, held that the eleven persons were guilty of an offence under Section 26, convicted them and sentenced them, as I have indicated. Of those eleven persons ten persons have petitioned this Court in revision. 5. The prosecution was under Section 26(1), Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Sub-section is in these terms: Any workman who commences, continues or otherwise acts in furtheran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Legislature where it intended that the cause of the strike should have relation to the dispute before the Tribunal or the award made thereon, it has said so in the clearest terms. Reference is made to Section 23(c). That provides that no workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of con-tract during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award. There is nothing in this section to prevent a workman going on strike during a period in which an award is in operation, if the strike is connected with matters other than those covered by the award. However, if the strike is in respect of any matters covered by the award then the strike is prohibited. It is to be observed that these words, In respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award , appear only in cl. (c) of Section 23, and find no place in either cl. (a) or cl. (b). The contention of the Advocate-General was that if it was intended to limit the operation of Section 23 (a) or (b) to strikes arising out of matters pending before the Tribunal, then words similar to the words found in cl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modified under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. In other words, the award which is to be put into operation may only be part of the award as originally made. Mr. Gupta, therefore, argues that it is necessary to insert the words in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award in cl. (c) of Section 23, because the actual award in operation might be something less or it might not cover matters which the original award dealt with. The contention is that the words in respect of the matters covered by the settlement or award would limit the operation of Section 23(c) to the award as modified or altered under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15. 16. In my judgment the words in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award are unnecessary for the purpose suggested by Mr. Gupta. The award which is put in operation is the award as modified and therefore, the opening words of Section 23(c) which are, during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation , must mean the period in which a settlement or award as modified by the Government concerned is in operation. By reason of the proviso to Sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has urged that other additions must be made to this section to make it intelligible; for example, he has urged that the opening words of the section as they stand are not intelligible. The words are No workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract..... Mr. Gupta has contended that to make that intelligible the words of service should be added to contract. If the words were added it would make the section perhaps a little more artistic, but I think, as the section is drafted, the word contract there can only mean contract of service, because it is a section dealing with workmen employed in an industrial establishment who strike in breach of contract. That must mean, therefore, breach of their contract of service with the employer in that particular industrial establishment. 19. Mr. Gupta also contended that unless some other words were added, workmen who were not intimately connected with the industrial dispute might be prevented from striking. For example, he urged that on a literal construction of this section employees of the Lloyds Bank in Bombay or Delhi would be prohibited from striking by reason of this section. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, then on the date of such commencement such reference shall be deemed to be withdrawn and all such proceedings shall abate. (2) The Central Government shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Ordinance, by order in writing, refer under Section 10 of the said Act every industrial dispute to which the provisions of Sub-section (1) apply to an Industrial Tribunal constituted under the said Act for adjudication. 23. This Ordinance put an end to all proceedings which were being carried on all over India before various Tribunals relating to disputes between banks and their employees, and the purpose of the Ordinance was that all the disputes should be referred to a Tribunal which would deal with all of them. Proceedings which had been commenced on reference of particular disputes abated and these proceedings between the Lloyds Bank in Calcutta and their employees at the Head Office and the Chowringhee branch abated under this Ordinance. The fact that the proceedings were never brought to a conclusion cannot affect the convictions. There were undoubtedly proceedings pending at that time and the employees went on strike whilst these proceedings were pending. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be given a limited meaning so as to indicate that the proceeding before the Tribunal must be in respect of the issue on which the petitioners went on strike. 27. The sole question before us is this : Is the strike illegal under Section 24, Industrial Disputes Act? Under that section a strike or lock-out shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 23. Under Section 23, there is a general prohibition with regard to strikes and lock-outs. The essential ingredients of an offence in such a case are : (a) that there must be workmen employed in an industrial establishment, (b) that they shall go on strike in breach of the contract of employment and (c) that there must be the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal. 28. In my opinion all these ingredients were present in this case. The petitioners urge that the Magistrate failed to appreciate that the prohibition contained in Section 23(b), referred only to a strike concerning the particular disputes which were pending adjudication before a Tribunal. 29. I cannot accede to this contention. On a proper reading of Sections 23 and 24 and the other relevant sections of this Act, it seems to me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... establishment in Calcutta are involved in an adjudication pending before a Tribunal. Suppose there is a big corporation which has five hundred branches all over the country and there is a tiny place where there is a local dispute between the manager and the employees; assume that in such a case there is a reference under Section 10 of that particular dispute to an Industrial Tribunal. If the Act is to be construed in such a manner as to say that all the workmen who are working in the other branch organisations throughout the country are debarred from resorting to any strike for ventilating their just grievances or for the redress of their disabilities, then surely the language of the statute would lead to great hardship and injustice. In my opinion that is not what the Act contemplates. It only puts an embargo on a strike in respect of the workmen employed in the particular industrial establishment, that is, the particular factory or workshop or branch which is involved in the pending proceedings before a Tribunal. In that view there is really no scope for the argument that the statute leads to great hardship or absurdity or injustice. In my view Section 23(c) says that workmen ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
