LexMANAGEMENT OF M/S PRADIP LAMP WORKS versus PRADIP LAMP WORKERS KARAMCHARYA SANGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
880
MANAGEMENT OF M/S PRADIP LAMP WORKS
A
v.
PRADIP LAMP WORKERS KARAMCHARYA SANGH AND
ANOTHER
October 16, 1969
(V. RAMASWAMI AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
industrial Dispute-Illegal strike b.v worknien followed by unjustified
lock-out by e111p/oyers-W ages for
period of lock·out
iv hen
blame
t1pportio1u.-ble between employers and work1nen-Adjour11n1e11t for pro-
~lucing tl-·idence as to blan1e-C'ircum.\'tances justifying.
There \Vas a one-day strike by the workmen in the appeliant facton'
on February 27, 1964. On the same Jay the management declared
a
lock-out which continued till March 22, 1964.
The industrial dispute
bci.1g referred to the Tribunal, the latter found that the strike was illegal
and the'refore the lock-out on February 27 was justified.
The Tribunal
however held that the prolonged Jock-out from February 28, onwards was
unjustified.
On this finding' the Tribunal awarded wages for the period
of the. lock-out after February 28, 1964 to the workmen. In appeal by
special leave before this Court it was contended on behalf of the employers
that the workmen were not free from blame in the matter of lock-out and
therefore in view of the decisions of this Court only half the wages for
the period of the unjustified lock-out should have been awarded to the
workmen. It was also submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in refusing
the appellant's prayer fo< adjournment which was sought for the purpose
of producing evidence regarding the blame for the lock-out.
HELD: (i) It was incumbent on the Tribunal to apply its mind to the
question of apportionment of blame on the two parties and to its effect
on the amount of wages to be awarded to the workmen for the period of
lock-out after February 28, 1964.
The drder of the Tribunal ignorin~
this important aspect was difficult to sustain. [885 B-CJ
India General NaviRali.:>n and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Their Workn1e11,
[1960] 2 S.C.R. I, India Marine Service Private Ltd. v. Their Workmen.
fl963] 3 S.C.R. 575 and Jeypore Sugar Compcny Ltd. v. Their Emplayees,
[1955] T L.L.J. 444, referred to.
(ii) On the facts of the case it would have been more appropriate
excrc~c of judicial discretion on the part of the Tribunal to adjourn the
case to the following day for the production of the appellant's evidence.
if nece'5ary on payment of costs .. [885 C-DJ
B
D
E
F
(iii) Jn the circumstances of1 the case it was not necessary to prolonJ!
G
the litigation by remitting the case back to the Tribunal. It was
more
just and proper to end the controversy by directing that half wages should
be paid to the workmen for the period of the lock-out from Febru3f\'
28, 1964. [885 El
C1YIL A~PELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 482 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated October 13.
1966 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Pair.a in Reference No. 7
of 1964 pronounced on the November 10, 1966.
ll
PRADIP LAMP v. WORKERS (Dua, J.)
881
A
H. R. Gokhale, K. B. Rohtagi and S. P. Wad, for the appellant.
B
c
S. C. Manchan{ia, S. S. Khanduja and R. A. Gupta, for res-
pondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, dated October 13, 1966,
by means of which the workmen of the appellant were held
entitled to wages for the period of the lock out beginning with
February 28, 1964 and ending with March 22, 1964.
On March 20, 1964 the Governor of Bihar referred the
following disputes to the Industrial Tribunal :
1. Whether the strike launched by 'ihe workers on the
morning of the 27th February, 1964, was justified?
2. Whether the lock-out declared by the Management is
justified?
D
3. Whether the workmen are entitled to wages for the
period of strike and/or lock-out?
On the first point the Tribunal came to the conclusion that
the strike by the workmen on February 27, 1964 was not justi-
fied.
As a result of this conclusion the lock-out declared by the
Management on February 27, 1964 was held to be justified but
on a consideration of the material placed before the Tribunal
no justification for continuing the lock-out on the following days
was shown. On this conclusion the Tribunal decided under
point No. 3 that the workmen were entitled to wages for the
remaining period of the lock-out.
F
In this Court the learned Advocate for the appellant raised
e>nly two points.
The first submission attacked the decision of
theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.