EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (P) LTD. versus MICHAEL MARK AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 25-07-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t "i 
) 
a s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (P) LTD. 
1J. 
MICHAEL MARK AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. GAJENJ)RAGADKAR, K. c. DASS GUPTA 
and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
405 
Wages, payment of-Strike by employees in enforcement of 
demands-Refu.sal to return on date specified by employer-If 
can be taken to be abandonment of employment-Premptory 
termination of employment-If termination without notice-
Payment of Wage8 Act, 1936 ( 4 of 1936), s. 15-Stanrf,ing Order, 
25(1). 
. 
The employees of the appellant made certain demands 
which were not accepted and they went on strike. The appe· 
Hant issued notices to the emplopees that if they did not 
return to work immediately, they would be deemed to have 
abandoned their employment. The strike was continued 
and thereupon the following notice was issued : 
"Further to our notices dated January l, 1957, and 
January 3, 1957, the workers who are not attending work 
since December 31, 1956, in spite of several requests to 
resume work, are hereby 
advised that their names ·are 
removed from the Muster as from 2 p.m. today (January 14, 
1957) as their having left our services of their own accord. 
Arrangements have been made to fill up the vacancies occuring 
as a result of desertion of workers from their places of duty. 
"Arrangements will be made to make payment of their 
dues, if any." 
The strike was called off on March 26, 195 7. 
A number 
of employees could not be taken back as their vacancies had 
been filled up. 
The first respondent in C.A. No. 94 and 
the first 97 respondents in the other appeal, who were not 
taken back, applied, along with others, for relief to the 
Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, who dismissed 
the application. Most of the employees moved the High Court 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution and their writ petitions 
were allowed. 
Standing Order 25(1) which applied provided 
as follows : -
· 
· 
.i, 
'I 
"The employment of permanent employees on monthly 
rates of pay may be terminated by giving one month's notice 
• 
I9flll 
July Iii •. 
190t 
Bxpr,aa--.N ;~sp_ajurs 
1Pi Ltd. . 
· 
v. 
Jlic~adl Marl: 
Mudliolkor J. 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) 
or on payment of one month's wages (including all allowances) 
in liell of notice . ..... " 
Held, that the Standing Order contemplated termination 
of employment by the employer and in the instant cases 
there could be no doubt that the appellant had terminated 
the employment of the respondents by removing their names 
from the Muster roll without giving them any notice of such 
removal. 
If employees absent themselves from work because -of 
strike in enforcement of their demands, there can be no 
question "f abandonment of· employment 
by them. The 
management cannot by imposing a new term of employment 
unilatera1ly, convert the. absence from work into abandon· 
ment of employment. 
If the strike was in fact illegal, the appellant could 
+ 
• 
take disciplinary action 
against the employees under the 
. .-
Standing Order and dismiss them. If that were done, the 
..._ 
strikers would not have been en titled to any compensation 
under Standing Order 25 ; but that was not what the appel-
lant purported to do. 
The respondents were therefore 
entitled to the relief. 
CIVIL APPELLATE Ju:RISDIOTION: Civil Appeal 
Nos .. 294 and 295 of 1961. 
Appeals from the· judgment and orders dated 
September 4 and 5, 1958, and October 6, 1958, of 
the Bombay High Conrt in Special Civil Appli· 
cations Nos. 1426 and 3190 of 1958 respectively. 
A. V. Viswanatha 
Sastri, G. Gopalakrishnan 
and V.J. M_erohant, for the appellants. 
K. T. Sule and Janardan Sharma, for the 
respondents. 
1962, July 25. This Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MUDHOLKAR, J.-The judgment will govern 
C. As. 294 and 295 of 1961 which arise out of 
identical facts. The facts necessary for deciding 
these appealsma;ir be stated thus: • 
) 
a s.c.~. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
407 
The first respondent in C.A. 294 of 1961 and the 
first ~7 respondents in the other appeal were emplo-
yees of the Express Newspapers Ltd., the appellants, 
at Bombay. On December 31, 1956, all the employees 
of the appellants went on strike because 
t~ree. 
demands· which were made by them on the prev10us 
day were riot granted by the appellants. On that 
4a.Y the appellants posted the following two notices 
addressed to the workmen who had struck work on -
their notice board~ 
••TJ ALL WORKMEN WHO HAVE STRUCK 
WORK 
You have struck work in contraventi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.