SYNDICATE BANK AND ANR. ETC. ETC versus SH. K. UMESH NAYAK ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 13-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SYNDICATE BANK AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
SH. K. UMESH NAYAK. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 
KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN, G.N. RAY 
AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Labour Law--lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, Ss. 22, 23 and 24-
Worker's entitlement to wages during strike period-Held, a/finning the view 
in T.S. Kelavala's case, to be entitled to wages for the strike-period, strike has C 
to be both legal and justified. 
Labour Law--lndustrial Disputes Act 1947, Ss. 22, 23 and 24-High 
Court in writ jurisdiction holding strike to be legal and justified-Held, these 
were issued to be decided by the industrial adjudicator under the Act and the D 
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction-Constitution of India, Article 226. 
In the Appeal by the State Bank of India the facts were that there 
were three settlements entered into in June, 1989 ·between the Appellant 
and the Respondnet staff union under which the employees were entitled E 
to certain advantages over and above those under an earlier All India 
Bipartite Settlement. The Appellant did not immediately implement the 
settlementS stating that Government's approval was required. The stand 
of the Respondent union was that the settlements were signed without any 
such pre-condition and should be implemented forthwith. They gave notice 
on September 1, 1989 that they would strike work on three different days F 
beginning September 18. In the conciliation proceedings that ensued the 
employees maintained that there was no dispute as such and that the only 
issue was of implementation of the settlements. The proceedings remaining 
inconclusive were adjourned to October 6, 1989. 
On October 1, 1989 the Respondent.gave a further notice of a strike G 
on October 16. The Appellant on October 12, 1989 issued a circular stating 
that it would deduct the salary for the days the employees would be on 
strike. The conciliation officer meanwhile adjourned the proceedings to 
October 17. The employees went on strike on October 16, 1989 and chal· 
lenged the Appellant's circular in a writ petition in the High Court. 
H 
491 
A 
B 
c 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP.. 3 S.C.R. 
Relying on the decision of this court in Bank of India v. T.S. Kelavala, 
(1990) 4 sec 744 which held that full day's wages could be deducted even 
if the strike were legal and only for a part of the day, the Single Judge of 
the High Court upheld the Appellant's circular and dismissed the writ 
petition. The Division Bench allowed the Respondent union's appeal hold-
ing that there was no industrial dispute for which conciliation proceedings 
could be held. Accordingly, the strike was not illegal and in the circumstan-
ces was also justified. There could be no deduction of wages for the strike 
period as held by this court in Management of Churakulam Tea Estate (P) 
Ltd. v. The Workmen and Anr., (1969) 1 SCR 931 and Crompton Greaves 
Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1978] 3 SCC 155. 
In the appeals by Syndicate Bank and Canara Bank, the only issue 
was whether when the employees struck work only for some hours of the 
day, their salary for the whole day could be deducted. 
On an apparent conflict of opinions expressed in the ,decisions in 
D Churakulam Tea Estate and Crompton Greaves on the one hand and 
T.S.Kelavala on the other, the Appeals were referred to a Constitution 
Bench. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. To be entitled to the wages for the strike-period, the strike 
has to be both legal and justified. There is nothing in the decisions in 
Churakulam Tea Estate and Crompton Greaves .cases which is contrary to 
the view taken in T.S. Kelavala. [507-H, 508-A] 
F 
Management of Churakulam Tea Estate (P) Ltd. v. The Workmen & 
Anr., (1969] 1 SCR 931 and Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1978] 
3 sec 155, explained. 
G 
H 
Bank of India v. T.S. Kelavala, (1990] 4 SCC 744, affirmed and 
explained. 
Management of Chandramalai Estate, Emakulam v. Its workmen & 
Anr., [1960] 3 SCR 451; Management of Karibetta Estate, Kotagiri, v. 
Rajamanickam and Others, (1960] 3 SCR 371 and India General Navigation 
and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1960] 2 SCR 1, referred to. 
2. Whether the strike was legal or illegal and justified or unjustified, 
SYNDICATEBANK v. K.U.NAYAK[SAWANT,J.] 
493 
were issues which fell for decision within the exclusive domain of the A 
industrial adjudicator under the Act. The High Court erred in recording 
its findings on the legality and justifiability. An enquiry into thes

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