LexBALLARPUR COLLIERIES CO, versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T. DHANBAD AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
c
0
E
F
G
H
805
BALLARPUR COLLIERIES CO,
v.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T. DHANBAD AND A.l.~lt.
March 14, 1972
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DuA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 23(b) and S. 23(c)-During pen-
denc)' of proceedings befo;-e Tribunal c.·nd during a settlement workers
struck-Whether S. 23 (b) or S. 23 (c) is attracted.
In 1956 the "Majumdar Award'" was published and to this Award the
appellant' was also a party. In January/February, 1960 the workers of
the appellant Colliery had gone on strike. The efforts of the ma'lage-
ment failed to persuade the workers to resume duty. On the interven-
t:on of the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bombay, the matter was
resolved as a result of which the workers resumed their duty and also got
their dues etc., irilm the management. In the report o'f what had trans-
pired during the negotiation! (Ex.D) it was stated, inter a/'a, that the
Regional Commissioner had also been assured by the workers that they
would see that "such strikes are not resorted to in future and would adopt
all consftutio'1al means to get their grievances redressed". Later, due to
certain d:fficulties in interpreting the terms df the Maiumdar Award, the
Central Government, under s. 36A .of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
referred to Shri Palit. the Chairman of the Central Government Indlls,.
·trial Tribunal, Dhanbad, the necessary question seeking interpretation of
certain provisions of the' said Award.
Thi~ reference is dated May 23,
1960.
'
It) 'the Award riven by Shri' Palit it was mentioned that all the l)Brtie8
who were impleaded in the Majumdar Award would be bound by. the
Ia ter 1\.,.ard.
During the. pendency of the proceedings before Shri Palit. the workers
of the app~lant went on strike from October, 4, 1960, the cause for the
strike being ~dismissal of 6 workmen. No notice of the strike, as requ:r-
ed by Sta'1dhg Order .no. 32, was given. The .aooellant, therefo.re, filed
an
ap~Hcation. belfo•e the Regio,al Labour Commissioner (Centra1) on
October 31, 1960 for a 'declaration that the str:'ke was ille~al. The Re-
gional Commissioner he4f the strike to be le~al and an · apt>eal to the
Industrial Tr{bu',al by tl'le apoellaTit also failed. Thereafter. the appellant
filed a wtit "Detition before the Hillh Court but it was dism'ssed. · On
appeal to this Court, two main points we·e raised by 'the a-ppellant : ( 1)
that the strike took place during the pend•mcv of the _reference before
Shri Palit and t1,erefore under cl. (b) of s. 23 of t11J Industrial Dispu'e5
Act, ·the strike was .me~al; (2) in anv case, the ' atr~ke took place
duri11~
the
Ml\dency
ot
the
aettlemel1t tected b~ th,e Re·
~lonal Commissioner, Bombay a11d, tberefo"e, und r el. (e) of s. 23 of
the Industrial Dlaoutea Act, the strike wu llleaal.
All owina the at)'j)ell,
H&.D: (l) nte lepl tftect of rerere11ce under 1. 36A ol th~ lfldUI·
trial Dlsoutes Act Ia· to.. reonen the narller reference termlnatln~ i11
the
¥•1umdq,. Award, thouQh o~lv for the llmlted nt1mos" nf t.l:!e interoreta.
h~n of .the provision~ of the award. i" resDf!ct of the dtftlcultiet or d()nJ,ta
~~vlniZ rise ~o the refere'lce. S'nee the .. .,,ellaflt wa1 a Mrty to the Pallt
Award, Its a.,~licatio; to wltMrAw and it1 non-nll~ici.,•tlo'' .If) the pro-
ceedln"S notw1thatand·n~, 1. 2'(b) ·nf tl,e Indu~tr1al Dieputet Act wu
attracted and the ttrike was illepl. (813 E]
;
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
Workmen of the Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Management of Motor
A
Industries Co. Ltd. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 304 and Hochtief Gammon v. Indus-
trial Tribunal, Bhubane~hwar [!964) 7 S.C.R. 596, referred to.
(ii) The assurance of the workers to the Commissioner that they
would not resort to such strikes in future and that ,they would adopt all
constitu.tional means to get their gr,evances redressed, neither amounted
to a contract nor was it a matter cove~cd by the said settl~ment with the
Regional Labour Commissioner.
Therefore, s-: 23 (c) was not ·attracted
H
in the facts and circumstances of the present c3se. In order to be hit by
s. 23(c) the strike must be in breach of contract in respect df a matter
covered by a settlem~nt which
is in operation at the time of the strike.
rs11 Gl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 876 oi 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 28, 1965 of the Patna High Court in M.J.C .. No. 721 of C
1962.
M. N. PhExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.