INDIA GENERAL NAVIGATION AND RAILWAY CO. LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 14-10-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
.. 
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
INDJA GENERAL NAVIGATION AND RAILWAY 
CO. LTD. 
v. 
THEIR ,WORKMEN 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Illegal strike in public utility service-
Lock out-Dismissal of workmen-Legality-Function of Industriat 
Tribunal-Measure of punishment-Award, finality of-Power of 
Supreme Court-Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (I4 of r947), ss. IJ, 
r7A, 22, 24(3)-Constitution of India, Art. r36. 
It was a contradiction in terms to say that a strike in a 
public utility service, which was clearly illegal, could also be 
justified. The law does not contemplate such a position nor is it 
warranted by any distinction made by the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947. It should be clearly understood by workmen who 
participate in such a strike that they cannot escape their liability 
for such participation and any tendency to condone such a strike 
must be deprecated. 
The only question of practical importance that arises in such 
a strike is, what should be the kind and quantum of the punish-
ment to be meted out to the participants and that question has to 
be decided on the charge-sheet served on each individual work-
man and modulated accordingly. 
In determining the question of punishment, distinction has 
to be made between those who merely participated in such a 
strike and those who were guilty of obstructing others or violent 
demonstrations or defiance of law, for a wholesale dismissal of 
all the workmen must be detrimental to the industry itself. 
If the employer, before dismissing a workman, gives him 
sufficient opportunity of explaining his conduct, and no question 
of mala jides or victimisation arises, it is not for the Tribunal, in 
adjudicating the propriety of such dismissal, to look into the 
sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence led before the enquiring 
officer or insist on the same dPgree of proof as is required in a 
Court of Law, as if it was sitting in appeal over the decision of 
the employer. In such a case it is the duty of the Tribunal to 
uphold the order of dismissal. 
Consequently, in the present case, where the appellants, who 
were carrying on busiqess in water transport service, notified as 
a public utility service, dismissed their workmen for joining an 
ille~al strike, on enquiry but without serving a charge-sheet on 
I959 
October I4• 
2 
SUPltEME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
z959 
each individual workman and the Industrial Tribunal directed 
their reinstatement, excluding only those who had been convicted 
f. G. N. & Rly. 
under s. 143 of the Indian Penal Code but including those convict-
Co. Ltd. 
ed under s. r88 of the Code, with full back-wages and allowances,-
v. 
Held, that the decision of the Tribunal to reinstate those who 
Their Worknien 
had been convicted under s. 188 of the Code must be set aside 
and the wages and allowances allowed to those reinstated must 
be reduced by half and the award modified accordingly. 
Held, further, that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must 
be read as subject to the paramount law of the land, namely, the 
Constitution, and the finality attaching to an a\vard under ss. 17 
and 17 A of the Act, must, therefore, yield to the overriding 
powers of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 
As the award in the instant case did not fall within the 
provisos to s. 17 of the Act, it was not correct to contend that 
the appellants had any other remedies thereunder to exhaust 
before they could come up in appeal to this Court. 
Nor was it correct to contend that the Government of Assam 
was a necessary party in the appeal inasmuch as it had acted by 
virtue of delegated powers of legislation under the Act in making 
the award enforceable as law. 
A State Government plays no 
part in such a proceeding except to make the reference under 
s. ro of the Act, nor has it anything to do with regard to the 
publication of the award, which is automatic under s. 17 of the 
Act, or its operation, unless the case falls within the provisos to 
s. 17 A of the Act. 
A lock-out lawfully declared under s. 24(3) of the Act, does 
not cease to be legal by its continuance beyond the strike, although 
such continuance may be unjustified, 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
86of1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 
November 15, 1956, of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, 
at Dhubri. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, S. N. 
Mukherjee and B. N. Ghose, for the appellan

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