LAKSHMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus PT. RAM SARUP

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 24-10-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
October 24. 
916 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
LAKSHMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
v. 
PT. R.AM SARUP. 
(and connected appeal) 
[BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, s. K. DAS and 
ti
GovINDA MENON JJ.] 
"
Industrial Dispute-Application for permission to dismiss work-
men-Jurisdiction of Appellate 
Tribunal-Scope of enquiry-
! nterim order of suspension by employer pending enquiry and receipt 
of permission-If amounts to a lock-out-If amounts to punishment 
-Prior permission of the Appellate Tribunal, if required-Enquiry 
by General Manager-Non-co-operation by Workmen-Enquiry not 
held within the prescribed time-If a breach of Standing Orders-
Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (XL VIII of 1950), 
.,. 22, 28-Indiistrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947J, s. 83( a)(b)-
Standing Orders, cl. L 12. 
Seventy-six workers of the appellant company resorted to a 
tools-down strike in sympathy with a dismissed co-worker. 
Re· 
peated attempts to persuade them to resume work having failed the 
General Manager suspended them until further orders. 
After mid· 
day recess the Management sought to prevent the workers from 
entering the mills but they violently entered the mills and the Police 
bad to be called in by the company to keep the peace. 
Charges of 
misconduct,a.nd insubordination were thereafter frame~ against the 
workers and they were called upon to show cause in an open 
enquiry to be held by the General Manager why disciplinary action 
should not be taken against them and the order of suspension was 
extended pending the enquiry. 
The workers took up an attitude 
of total non-eel-operation and the atmosphere was tense with the 
result that the enquiry could not be held within 4 days. 
The 
Management decided to dismiss the workers as a result of the en ... 
quiry but as an appeal was then pending before the Labour A11pel· 
late Tribunal, the company applied to it under s. 22 of the Indus· 
trial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Acit of 1950 for permission to do 
so and extended the period of suspension pending receipt of such 
permission. 
The workmen in their turn filed an application under 
s. !13 of the Act to the Appellate Tribunal for requisite action to 
be taken against the company for having contravened s. 22(b) of 
the Act by resorting to an illegal lock·out and thereby punishing 
them without its prior permission. 
The Appellate Tribunal held 
that the company bad not held the enquiry within the time specified 
by cl. L 12 of the Standing Orders and on that ground dismissed its 
application. It allowed the application of the workers holding that 
the wholesale suspension of the workers and preventing them from 
continuing work after the mid-day recess amounted to a lock-out 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
917 
and punishment by the company and contravened ~· 22(b) of the 
Act and directed their reinstatement. 
The company appealed. It 
was contended on behalf of the company that there had been neither 
a breach of cl. L 12 of the Standing Orders nor a contravention of 
s. 22(b) of the Act. 
Held, that the contentions were correct and the appeals must 
succeed. 
The conduct of the company did not come within the definition 
of a lock·out and even if there was any lock-out it was in con· 
sequence of the illegal strike resorted to by the workmen and as such 
could not be deemed to be illegal by virtue of s. 24(3) of the Indus· 
trial Disputes Act, 194 7. 
Moreover, even assuming that the company declared an illegal 
lock-out it was not necessary for it to obtain the permission of the 
Appellate Tribunal under s. 22 of the Act before it could do so. 
A lock-out was neither an alteration of tb e conditions of service 
within the meaning of cl. (a) nor a discharge or punishment by dis-
missal or otherwise within the meaning of cl. ,(b) of s. 33 of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under s. 22 of the Industrial Dis-
putes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 and no permission was, there-
fore, required for its declaration. If the lock·out was illegal the 
workmen had their remedy under s. 26 of the Industrial Disputes 
Act.and in any event they had the right to have the dispute referred 
for adjudication. 
Jute Workers Federation, Calcutta v. Clive Jute Mills ([1951] 
II L.L.J. 344) and Colliery Mazdoor Congress, Asansol v. New 
Beerbhoom Coal Co. Ltd. ([1952] L.A.C. 219), approved. 
The Company having been declared a public utility concern, 
the workets had no right to go on strike without giving a notice in 
terms of 

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