LexMANAGEMENT OF CHURAKULAM TEA ESTATE (P) LTD. versus THE WORKMEN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. • A MANAGEMENT OF CHURAKULAM TEA ESTATE (P) LTD. v. THE WORKMEN & ANR. September 3, 1968 B (J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAYA AND, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] c D E F G H Industrial Dispute-Bonus paid for past number of years, neither at a uniform rate nor connected with any festival-Clai111 as implied con- dition of service-Whether sustainable--Strike protesting against the management's boycotting conference, whether justified-Lay off b,v management consequent to strike, whether ju~tified. FQr the past number of years the appellant management, had paid bonus to its workmen-respondents at different rates. In respect of the years 1957, 1958 and 1959, !'here was a setl!ement between the manage- ments of various similar industries. and their workmen relating to pay~ ment of bonus, and in this settlement it was stated that it would not apply to the appellant's industry, The appellant declined to pay any bonus for these three years, The respondents-workmen claimed bonus for these years on the basis that the payment had become traditional and cusl-Omari•. or~ at any rate, it had become an implied condition of service : it was not· claimed as profit bonus, production bonus or bonus connected with any festival. The conciliation proceedings relating to the claim of bonus failed. The Labour Minister called for a conference of the represento- tives of the management and the workmen. The representatives of the \Vorkmen attended the conference but the management boycotted it. Ihe factory work.men went on strike for half a day, and on this very day the management put up a notice that since the factory workers had gone on strike without previous notice they were forced to lay-cff without com- pensatiO:n all the workmen in the enti're establishment. The Government . referred the disputes for adjudication by Tribunal. The Industrial Tribu- nal held that (i) the workmen were entitled to bonUs as it had become an implied condition of rervice, (ii) the strike by facl-Ory workers was both legal and justified and directed payment of wages for that day; and (iii) the lay-Off by the management was without just cause and was done as a retaliatory measure. and directed payment of w31l"s also for thio period, In appeal, this Court, HELD : ( i) The claim for bonus could not be sustained .even as a customary or traditional bonus, because. apart from the fact that it w2s not connected with any festival, one of the essential ingredients, viz., that the payment should have been at a uniform rate throughout, was also ndmittedly lacking in the case. An implied condition of service could not be inferred, where payment had not been uniform in the past, unless such payment could be connected with some festivaL [939 C-E] lspahani Ltd, Calcutta v. /spahani Employus' Union, [1960] I S,CR 24, distingu;,shed, Mahalax1ni Cotton Mills Ltd. Calcutta v. Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills Workers' Union [1952] LkC. 370, The Graham Trading Co. (India) Ltd, v. Its Workmen, [1960] I S.C.R 107. Management of Bombay Co. Ltd, v, Workmen, [1964] 7 S,CR. 477, Bombay Company (Private) Ltd. v. Their Eftlployees, C.A. No. 659 df 1966 dt. 22-9-1967 and Jardine Henderson Ltd, v. The Workmen & Anr. [1962] Supp. 3 S,C,R. 582, referred to. ' • • ' • 932 SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS (1969) I S C.R (ii) The s•rikc by the factory workers could not be considered to be· A illegal. There were no concilialion proceedings pending before a Board of Conciliation on the day on which the factory workers went on strike and hence the strike did not come under s. 23 (a) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947. Further there was nothing in the evidence adduced by the management to sho\v that the strike was not for the reason given by the workmen ''iz., to protest against 1hc attitude of the man:1gcmcnt in boycotting the conference called by Labour Minister. [94 t BJ Mana1:en1e11r of Clia11dramalai l:,".r/<llc, f7rnakula1n v. Its Workn1en [ t 960] 3 S.C.R. 451. referred to. (iii) There was no force in the management's contention that as there \Vas a strike in the factory section, work in the other section could not be carried on and, as the management were not sure whether the work- men y,.·ould tum up for \lo·ork, Jay-off, in the circumsranccs, wa<; justified. The entire body of \lo'ork.men present·cd for work on the next day of the strike by the factory \Yorkers, hut they were declined work by the manage- ment on the ground
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.