MANAGEMENT, ESSORPE MILLS LTD. versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1149 · Decided: 04-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1149 
MANAGEMENT, ESSORPE MILLS LTD. 
A 
v. 
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2006) 
APRIL 4, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -
s. 22(1) - Notice of strike 
- Issued on 14th March, 1991 stating that the strike will 
commence on or after 24th March, 1991 - Validity of - Held: c 
Not valid - The strike notice did not satisfy the requirement of 
advance notice stipulated uls 22(1) since six weeks' time 
before date of strike not given. 
On 14th March, 1991, the Workers' Union served a 
strike notice on the management of Appellant-textile mills D 
purportedly under s.22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
_;,,,. 
1947 stating that "strike would commence on or after 24th 
March, 1991 ". Respondents-workmen were dismissed 
from service after holding of disciplinary enquiry. They 
filed petitions under s.2-A of the Act for re-instatement with E 
back wages and continuity of service. The Labour Court 
held that the strike was illegal, however, in purported 
exercise of powers under s.11-A of the Act it substituted 
the punishment of dismissal by order of discharge and 
awarded compensation of Rs.50,0001- to each workman. 
F 
High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by Respondents 
on ground of non compliance of s.33(2)(b) of the Act and 
directed their re-instatement with full back wages and 
continuity of service. It held that a copy of the strike notice 
dated 14th March, 1991 was sent to the Conciliation Officer G 
and, therefore, conciliation proceedings were pending on 
the date of dismissal and since the dismissal was without 
the approval of the Conciliation Officer in terms of s.33 of 
the Act, the same was illegal. Appellant filed writ appeals 
which were dismissed. 
H 
1149 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the 
appellant that the High Court failed to appreciate that the 
strike notice issued on 14th March, 1991 stating that the 
strike will commence on or after 24th March, 1991 i.e. (ju.st 
10 days notice) did not satisfy the requirement of advance 
B notice stipulated u/s 22 (1), therefore, it was not a valid 
notice of strike, consequently, in the eye of law there could 
be no commencement of conciliation proceedings in 
terms of s.20(1) as a result of the said notice. It was 
contended that since no conciliation proceeding was 
C pending at the time of dismissal of workmen, s.33 was 
not attracted and there was no question of seeking 
permission of the Conciliation Officer in such a case: 
The Appellant contended that the High Court failed 
to appreciate that in terms of s.33-A for not obtaining 
D permission of the Conciliation Officer under s.33, the only 
legal consequence provided is that the Conciliation Officer 
shall take the complaint of contravention of the provisions 
of s.33 into account in mediating in and promoting the 
settlement of such industrial dispute and therefore the 
E order of dismissal in any event was not illegal. It was 
contended that there was no complaint made to the 
Conciliation Officer in this case and the Conciliation officer, 
unlike the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, has no 
power of adjudication and therefore, he could not set aside 
F the order of dismissal which remained valid. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. S.22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
aims at stalling action for illegal strike. It pre-supposes a 
G notice before the workmen resorted to strike. The notice 
has to be given to the employer. Different stages 
enumerated by Section 22(1) of the Act are : (i) Advance 
notice of 6 weeks; (ii) 14 days given to the employer to 
consider the notice; (iii) the workmen giving the notice 
cannot go on strike before the indicated date of strike and 
H 
MANAGEMENT, ESSORPE MILLS LTD. v. PRESIDING 
1151 
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT & ORS. 
(iv) Pendency of any conciliation proceedings. [Paras 12, A 
15, 20] [1156-C, D, E; 1157-A; 1159-C, D] 
1.2. The workmen cannot go on strike within six 
weeks notice in terms of s.22(1)(a) and 14 days thereafter 
in terms of s.22(1 )(b). Earlier illegal strike is not remedied 
by a subsequent strike as provided in s.22. [Paras 19, 
B 
20] [1159-C-D] 
1.3. In the instant case, the date of notice is 14.3.1991 
and the proposed strike was on 24.3.1991. Six weeks' time 
before the date of strike was not given. Therefore, on the C 
face of it, it cannot be treated t

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