Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
MANAGEMENT OF M/S PRADIP LAMP WORKS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRADIP LAMP WORKERS KARAMCHARYA SANGH AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
16/10/1969
BENCH:
ACT:
Industrial Dispute-Illegal strike by workmen followed by
unjustified lock-out by employers-Wages for period of lock-
out when blame apportionable between employers and Workmen-
Adjournment for producing evidence as to blame circumstances
justifying.
HEADNOTE:
There was a one-day strike by the workmen in the appellant
factory on February 27, 1964. On the same day the
management declared a lock-out which continued till March
22, 1964. The industrial dispute being referred to the
Tribunal, the latter found that the strike was illegal and
therefore the lock-out on February 27 was justified. The
Tribunal however held that the prolonged lock-out from
February 28, onwards was unjustified. On this finding the
Tribunal awarded wages for the period of the lock-out after
February 28, 1964 to the workmen. In appeal by special
leave before this Court it was contended on behalf of the
employers that the workmen were not free from blame in the
matter of lock-out and therefore in view of the decisions of
this Court only half the wages for the period of the
unjustified lock-out should have been awarded to the
workmen. It was also submitted that the Tribunal was wrong
in refusing the appellant’s prayer for adjournment which was
sought for the purpose of producing evidence regarding the
blame for the lock-out.
HELD: (i) It was incumbent on the Tribunal to apply its
mind to the question of apportionment of blame on the two
parties and to its effect on the amount of wages to be
awarded to the workmen for the period of lock-out after
February 28. 1964. The order of the Tribunal ignoring this
important aspect was difficult to sustain. (885 B-C]
India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Their
Worknzeii, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 1, India Marine Service Private
Ltd. v. Their Workinen, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 575 and jeypore
Sugar Company Ltd. v. Their Employees. [1955] 1 L.L.J.
444, referred to.
(ii) On the facts of the case it would have been more
appropriate exercise of judicial discretion on the part
of the Tribunal to adjourn the case to the following day for
the production of the appellant’s evidence, if necessary on
payment of costs. [885 C-D]
(iii) In the circumstances of, the case it was not
necessary to prolong the litigation by remitting the case
back to the Tribunal. It was more just and proper to end
the controversy by directing that half wages should be paid
to the workmen for the period of the lock-out from February
28, 1964. 1885 E]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 482 of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated October 13,
1966 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna in Reference
No. 7 of 1964 pronounced on the November 10, 1966.
881
H. R. Gokhale, K. B. Rohtagi and S. P. Wad, for the
appellant,
S. C. Manchanda, S. S. Khanduja and R. A. Gupta, for
respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, dated October 13,
1966. by means of which the workmen of the appellant were
held entitled to wages for the period of the lock out
beginning with February 28, 1964 and ending with March 22,
1964.
On March 20, 1964 the Governor of Bihar
referred the following disputes to the
Industrial Tribunal :
1. Whether the strike launched by the
workers on the morning of the 27th February,
1964, was justified ?
2. Whether the lock-out declared by the
Management is justified ?
3. Whether the workmen are entitled to
wages for the period of strike and/or lock-out
?
On the first point the Tribunal came to the conclusion that
the strike by the workmen on February 27, 1964 was not
justified. As a result of this conclusion the lock-out
declared by the Management on February 27, 1964 was held to
be justified but on a consideration of the material placed
before the Tribunal no justification for continuing- the
lock-out on the following days was shown. On this
conclusion the Tribunal decided under point No. 3 that the
workmen were entitled to wages for the remaining period of
the lock-out.
In this Court the learned Advocate for the appellant raised
only two points. The first submission attacked the decision
of the Tribunal under point No. 2, where it is held that the
lockout by the Management was unjustified after February 27,
1964 and the second submission assailed the decision under
point No. 3 awarding to the workmen wages for the period of
lock-out between February 28, 1964 and March 22, 1964.
On the first point Shri Gokhale very frankly conceded that
the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal was not open
to challenge in the present appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution. He, however, contended that the order of the
Tribunal in this respect is open to question on the ground
that the appellant had been deprived of a reason-able
opportunity of adducing evidence in support of its case. He
referred us to the proceeding--, of the Tribunal held on
September 29, 1966. On that date the Tribunal recorded the
following order
882
"Parties present. Management is represented
by Shri. Pandey S. Prasad, personal officer
and the workmen are represented by Shri Kalika
Nandan Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Pradeep
Lamp Works Karamchari Sangh and Shri B. B.
Karan on behalf of Pradeep Lamp Workers’
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
Union. Shri Karan files written statement on
behalf of his union today. This written
statement cannot be accepted it has been filed
so late. The Workers’ Union may adduce its
evidence if it so likes.
Hearing oil the case is taken up. As the
Karamchari Sangh pleaded its inability to
start its evidence, the management is called
upon to produce its witnesses. The management
examines M.W. 1. Trilokinath Rastogi and M.W.
2 Shri R. M. Kahattriya who are discharged
after cross-examination. M.W. 1. proves Exts.
A, A-1, B, B/1, B/2 & B/l for the management.
Thereafter the management prays that the case
may be adjourned as it wants to examine more
witnesses. The parties should have come ready
with all their evidence today. The prayer for
adjournment by the management is therefore
rejected. Oral evidence on behalf of the
management closed. Union examined L.W.l.
Krishna Thakur who is discharged, after cross-
examination. As it is late, the case is
adjourned for tomorrow for further hearing.
Call for the letter of the Labour
Commissioner dated 13-3-64 on party’s risk."
The argument strongly pressed on behalf of the appellant was
that the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the appellant’s
prayer for adjournment when it had already given time to the
Karamchari Sangh to produce its evidence later because of
its inability to start its evidence in the first instance.
According to the appellant’s argument the discretion
exercised by the Tribunil was arbitrary and contrary to the
accepted judicial procedure. In this connection our
attention was also drawn to a written application made by
the appellant to the Tribunal on September 29, 1966 seeking
an opportunity for producing the witnesses named therein,
but the prayer was disallowed by the Tribunal. The order of
the Tribunal disallowing the prayer was described the
learned Advocate to be discriminatory and violative of the
recognised standards of judicial impartiality. Had the
Sangh been compelled to start its evidence, then, so
proceeded the argument, the appellant’s oral evidence could
not be closed because the case was ad journey to the
following day without concluding the recording of the
evidence of the Union and on that day the remaining evidence
of the management could be produced in the normal course.
883
On behalf of the respondent Shri Manchanda tried to meet
this argument by submitting that the parties must be
presumed to have been directed by the Tribunal on the
previous hearing to come ready with their oral evidence on
September 29, 1966. To rebut this presumption, argued Shri
Manchanda, the appellant should have got printed the
previous order adjourning the case to September 29, 1966 for
recording the evidence of the parties. The learned Advocate
also submitted that the question whether or not a party is
entitled to an adjournment for producing its evidence is a
matter of discretion and the exercise of discretion cannot
be assailed on appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
The second point strongly urged by Shri Gokhale relates to
the grant of full wages to the workmen for the remaining
period of the lock-out. If the blame for the lock-out was
apportionable to both the parties the, according to the
submission, full wages could not be awarded. In such cases
the normal practice, argued the learned Advocate, was to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
award half of their wages. In support of this submission
reference was, to begin with, made to a decision of this
Court as India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. v.
Their Workmen. (1) At page 31 of the report this Court said
:
"As regards the remaining workmen, the
question is whether the Tribunal was entirely
correct in ordering their reinstatement with
full back wages and allowances on and from
August 20, 1955, till reinstatement. This
would amount to wholly condoning the illegal
act of the strikers. On the findings arrived
at before us, the workmen were guilty of
having participated in an illegal strike, for
which they were liable to be dealt with by
their employers. It is also clear that the
inquiry held by the appellants, was not
wholly regular as individual charge sheets had
not been delivered to the workmen proceeded
against. When the blame attaches to both the
parties, we think that they should divide the
loss half and half between them. We, there-
fore, direct that those workmen whose
reinstatement by the Tribunal is upheld by us,
should be entitled only to half of their wages
during the period between the date of the
cessation of the illegal strike (i.e. from
August 20, 1955) and the date the Award became
enforceable. After that date they will be
entitled to their full wages, on
reinstatement."
(1) [1960] 2 S.C.R.l.
Sup.(CI)170-11
884
The other decision cited on this point is
reported as India
Marine Service Private Ltd. v. Their
Workmen.(1) At page 583 of the report it was
observed thus :
"It is true that the strike was intended to be
a token one. But the object of that strike
being to circumvent settlement in an amicable
manner, even though the company was ready for
such settlement, we have no doubt that strike
was unjustified. It is in the light of this
finding that the lock-out has to be judged.
In our opinion, while the strike was
unjustified the lock-out when it was ordered
on November 13, 1958, was justified. It seems
to us, however, that though the lock-out was
justified at its commencement its continuation
for 53 days was wholly unreasonable and,
therefore, unjustified.. In a case where a
strike is unjustified and is followed by a
lock-out which has because of its long
duration, become unjustified it would not be a
proper course for an industrial tribunal to
direct the payment of the whole of the wages
for the period of the lock-out. We would like
to make it clear that in a case where the
strike is unjustified and the lock-out is
justified the workmen would not be entitled to
any wages at all. Similarly where th
e strike
is justified and the lock-out is unjustified
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
the workmen would be entitled to the entire
wages for the period of strike and lock-out.
Where, however,. a strike is unjustified and
is followed by a lock-out which becomes
unjustified a case for apportionment of blame
arises."
In that case also the blame for the situation was
apportioned roughly half and half between the Company and
the Workmen with the result that the workmen were given half
of their wages for the period in question.
The, respondent’s learned Advocate, submitted in reply that
the management had been adopting dilatory tactics and there
was a very trivial instance of slapping a workman which had
led to a demand by the workmen for an apology from the
offending party and this had led to the strike and the lock
out. In the background of this situation, the learned
Advocate contended, the order giving full wages to the
workmen was fully justified. It was emphasised that for one
day when the strike was held to be illegal, the workmen have
been deprived of their wages completely. Thereafter they
were always willing to work but the management declared a
lock out and continued the same with- out any justification.
The learned Advocate referred us to a
(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 575.
885
pany Ltd. v. Their Employees(1) in support of his submission
that the assault on a workman was not a matter of such a
serious nature as would justify the management to declare
the lock-out, more particularly to continue it for such a
long duration.
In our opinion, it was incumbent on the Tribunal to apply
its mind to the question of apportionment of blame on the
two parties and to its effect on the amount of wages to be
awarded to the workmen for the period of the lock out after
February 28, 1964. The order of the Tribunal ignoring this
important aspect is infirm and is difficult to sustain. In
so far as the first question in concerned, prima facie, the
order of the Tribunal does appear to be somewhat arbitrary
and injudicious and it would have been more appropriate
exercise of judicial discretion to adjourn the case to the
following day for the production of the appellant’s
evidence, if necessary, on payment of costs. Had we decided
to remit the case back to the Tribunal for considering the
question of the effect of both parties being blame worthy
for the lock out on the amount of wages to awarded, we would
have perhaps thought it proper also to direct the Tribunal
to permit the appellant to adduce evidence. This evidence,
we were informed, was only sought to be adduced on the
question of apportionment of blame. On a consideration of
all the facts and circumstances of the case we, however,
feel that it would be more just and proper not to prolong
this litigation and to put to an end to the controversy by
directing that half wages should be paid to the workmen for
the period of lock out from February 28, 1964.
We accordingly allow the appeal to the extent stated but in
the circumstances of the case there would be no order as to
costs.
G.C.
Appeal allowed.
(1) [1955] 2 L.L.J. 444.
886