FEROZ DIN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 25-11-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
319 
Article 16(1) of the Constitution. For even assuming 
z959 
that they are so included, the present application must 
All India 
be rejected on the simple ground that the petitioners Station Masters' 
belong to a wholly distinct and separate class from 
& Asst. 
Guards and so there can be no question of equality of Station Masters' 
opportunity in matters of promotion as between the 
Association 
petitioners and Guards. 
G 
v. 
. . 
eneral Manager, 
The learned Counsel for the pet1t10ners stated before central Railways 
us that this channel of promotion for Guards is peculiar 
to the Central Railways; and is not now to be found 
Das Gupta J. 
in the other Zones of Indian Railways. If that be the 
position, the matter may well deserve the attention of 
the Government; but this has nothing to do with the 
merits of the petition before us. 
For the reasons mentioned above, we dismiss the 
app.lication, but in view of all the circumstances, we 
order that parties will bear their own costs. 
Petition dismissed. 
FEROZ DIN AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Strike-Notice of 
discharge-Whether 
amounts to lock-out-Sanction to proseci~te- Facts constituting the 
offence not sha:wn on the face-Conviction on such sanction if bad-· 
Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), ss. 27, 24, 2(I). 
· 
A company dismissed from its service four of the appellants, 
for taking part and instigating others to join, in an illegal slow-
down strike in the Hot Mill Section of its works, which were a 
public utility service. On such dismissal the slow-down strike 
however gained strength. The company thereupon issued a 
notice dated April 8, 1953, to the workers of the Hot Mill that 
unless they voluntarily recorded their willingness to operate the 
plant to its normal capacity, before 2 p.m. of April IO, they would 
be considered to be no longer employed by the company. As a 
result forty workers recorded their willingness, but the rest did 
not make any response at all. Th:e company then issued a second 
notice dated April 25, stating, inter alia, that the workers who 
did not record their willingness to work the plant to its normal 
capacity in terms of the previous notice dated April 8, had been 
considered to be no longer in service and their formal discharge 
I959 
November 25 
r959 
Feroz Din 
and Others 
v. 
The State of 
Wesl Bengal 
Sarkar ]. 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)) 
from the company's service bad been kept pending in order to 
assure to the fulle>t that no one who wanted to work normally 
was being discharged on circumstantial as::.umptions and calling 
upon the workers to record their willingness by April 28, 1953, 
to operate the plant to its normal capacity, and further intimating 
that failing tnis their names would be removed from the 
company's rolls and their discharge would become fully effective 
with all the implications of a discharge. After this notice the 
entire body of workers of the works except those engaged in the 
essential services went on strike. Thereafter, the company with 
the sanction of the Government filed a complaint under s. 27 of 
the Industrial Disputes Act against the appellants for having 
instigated and incited others to take part in an illegal strike. 
The appellants were convicted. The appellants challenged 
the said conviction under s. 27 of the Act contending that the 
strike was not illegal as the strike had been in consequence of an 
illegal lock-out declared by the company by the said notices dated 
Aptil 8 and April 25. The appellants further contended that the 
notices did not effect a discharge, but declared a lock-out and 
that even if the notices did effect a discharge, then also there was 
a lock-out, for a discharge is equally a lock-out. Finally the 
appellants challenged the propriety of the sanction under s. 34(1) 
of the Act to make the complaint as the sanction did not on the 
face of it refer to the facts constituting the offence. 
Held, that on a construction of the notices they had the effect 
of discharging the workmen, and did not amount to a declaration 
of lock-out by the company. 
The removal of the name of a worker from the Roll of the 
company was a formality which the notices said had been kept 
pending and this did not prevent the discharge having taken 
effect. 
The words "refusal by an employer to continue to employ 
any number of person

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