RAJA BAHADUR MOTILAL POONA MILLS versus TUKARAM PIRAJI MASALE

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 31-10-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

..... 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
939 
RAJ A BAHADUR MOTILAL POON A MILLS 
v. 
TUKARAM PIRAJI MASALE. 
[BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S. K. DAS and 
GovINDA MENON JJ.] 
Industrial Dispute-Strike-Change in the existing system of 
working-Workers obiecting as illegal change and going on strike-
Strike, whether illegal-Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 
( Bom. XI of 1947 ), s. 97(1)( c). 
By s. 97(1)(c) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946: 
"A strike shall be illegal if it is commenced or continued only for 
the reason that the employer has not carried out the provisions of 
any standing order or has made an illegal change". 
The management of the appellant Mill desiring to make a 
change in the existing system of working started making an exper~­
ment by asking a few workmen who had volunteered to work at 
the rate of four looms to a weaver for a period of two months. The 
other workers objected that this was an illegal change on the ground 
that the management could not legally introduce any change with· 
out first going through the procedure prescribed by the Act, and 
went on strike. The question was whether the strike was illegal. 
Held, that as the workmen had gone on strike only for the rea-
son that the change or experiment made by the appellant was an 
illegal change, their action came within the express terms of s. 
97(1)(c) of the Act and the strike was illegal. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 323 of 1955. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 
2, 1953 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil 
Application No. 159 of 1953. 
r1 
R.J. Kolah and A.G. Dave, for the appellant. 
H. R. Gokhale, K. R. Ghaudhury and M. R. Ranga-
swamy, for respondent No. 2. 
1956. October 31. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
GOVINDA MENON J.-On July 20, 1954, the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay granted a certificate 
of fitness under Art. 133(l)(c) of the Constitution 
7956 
October 3/, 
1956 
Raja Bahadttr 
Motilal Poona 
Mills 
v. 
Tttkara1n Piraji 
Jf.lasale 
GotJinda Mcno1~ J. 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
that the judgment of that court dated July 2, 1953, 
.passed in Special Civil Application No. 159 of 1953, 
was a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court as it 
involved a substantial question of law, and it is in 
pursuance of such certification that the above appeal 
is now before this court. A brief resume of the facts 
and circumstances, which led to the application for a 
writ of certiorari in the High Court, becomes neces-
sary for a correct appreciation of the question of 
law involved and may, therefore, be shortly stated. 
The appellant which may hereafter, for the purpose 
of convenience, be called "The Mill", is a limited 
company owning and possessing a Cotton Textile 
Spinning and Weaving Mill situated in Poona, em-
ploying a large number of workmen who have a union 
of theirs. 
The first respondent is a workman em-
ployed by the Mill and the second respondent is the 
Poona Girni Kamagar Union of which the first res-
pondent is a member. 
Respondents 3 to 5 were for-
mally added as parties in the first instance, but their 
names were struck off as unnecessary at the time of 
the hearing. 
· 
The appellant was running 580 looms, for working 
which one weaver had been allotted at the rate of 
two looms; and when things were in that state on 
August 29, 1951, the Management issued a notice to 
the effect that from September 1, 1951, it was desired 
to carry on an experiment of four looms to a weaver 
for a period of 2 months, on 16 looms. If at the end 
of that period or before the expiry of the same it 
was found that the working was successful, the 
Management would introduce the scheme after giving 
the notice of change required under the Act. The 
object of this notice was ostensibly to introduce 
rationalization or rather efficiency system of work, 
if and when the suggested experiment proved success-
ful. 
As a resut of this notice on September 4, 1951, 
the Secretary of the Union wrote to the Manager of 
the appellant Mill intimating that under the Bombay 
Industrial Relations Act the Management could not 
legally introduce any change in the existing system 
of working without first giving notice of the change 
• 
.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS 
941 
in the prescribed form to the representatives of the 
Union and workers and without going through the 
.other procedure prescribed by the Act; and the 
Management were further informed that if they

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