THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANDRAMALAI ESTATE, ERNAKULAM versus ITS WORKMEN AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 04-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
451 
THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANDRAMALAI 
ESTATE, ERNAKULAM 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN AND ANOTHER. 
( P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,,K. N. W ANCHOO and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ. ) 
Industrial Dispute-Failure of conciliation-Union to take 
prroper and. reasonable course before calling a strike. 
The management having refused to comply. with some of the 
demands raised by workmen, the matter was referred for concilia-
tion. Efforts at conciliation failed on November 30, 1955· On 
the very next day the unionfgave:a strike.notice and actually went 
on strike with effect from December 9, 1958. On January 3, 
1956, the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tri-
bunal and the strike was called off on January 5, 1956. The 
question as to whether the workmen were entitled to get wages 
for the period of the strike was along with some ofher grounds 
referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that both 
the parties were to blame for the strike and that the workmen 
~ere entitled to get 50% of the emoluments for the period of 
strike: 
Held, that on the facts of the case the strike was unjustified 
and that the workmen were not entitled ·to any wages for the 
period. 
When conciliation attempts failed it was reasonable for the 
union to take the normal and reasonable course provided by law 
to settle the dispute by asking :the Government to make a refer-
ence to the Industrial Tribunal before it decided to strike. 
A strike which is a legitimate weapon in the hands of the work-
men would not be ordinarily justified· if hastily resorted to 
without exhausting reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement 
of the object. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 347/1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 
October 17, 1957, of the Industrial Tribunal No. II, 
Ernakulam, in Industrial Disputt:i No. 63 of 1956. 
S. Govind Swaminadhan and P. Ram Reddy, for 
the appellant. 
. 
Jacob A. Chakramakal and K. Sundararajan, for 
respondent No. 1. 
K. R. Ghoudhry, for respondent No. 2. 
1960. April 4. 
The Judgment of. the Court . wa;s 
delivered by 
April 4. 
Jtf anagement of 
Chandranialai 
Estate, 
Ernakulam 
v. 
Its Workmen 
Das Gupta ]. 
452 
SUPREME COURT R~JPORTS 
(1960) 
DAS GUPTA, J.-On August 9, 1955, the Union of 
the workmen of the Chandramalai Estate submitted 
to the Manager of the Estate a memorandum contain-
ing fifteen demands. Though the management agreed 
to fulfil some of the demands the principal demands 
remained unsatisfied. On August 29, 1955, the Labour 
Officer, Trichur, who had in the meantime been "'P· 
prised of the position by both the management of the 
Estate as well as the Labour Union advised mutual 
negotiations between the representatives of the man-
agement and workers. Ultimately the matter was 
recommended by the Labour Officer to the Conciliation 
Officer, Trichur, for conciliation. The Conciliation 
Officer's efforts proved in vain. The last meeting for 
Conciliation appears to have been held on November 
30, 1955. On the following day the Union gave a 
strike notil:le and the workmen went on a strike with 
effect from December 9, 1955. The strike ended on 
January 5, 1956. Prior to this, on January 5, the 
Government had referred the dispute as regards five 
of the demands for adjudication to the Industrial 
Tribunal, Trivandrum. Thereafter by an order dated 
June 11, 1956, the dispute was withdrawn from the 
Trivandrum Tribunal and referred to the Industrial 
Tribunal, Ernakulam. By its award dated October 
17, 1957, the Tribunal granted the workmen's demands 
on all these issues. The present appeal has been 
preferred by the management of the Chandramalai 
Estate against the Tribunal's award on three of these 
issues. ·These three issues are stated in the reference 
thus: 
" 1. 
W .as the price realised by the management for 
the rice 8uld to Lhe workers after decontrol excessive; 
and if so, are the workers entitled to get refund of the 
excessive value so collected? 
• 
2. 
Are the workers entitled to get cumbly allowance 
with retrospective effect from the date it was stopped 
and what should be the rate of such allowance? 
3. 
Are the workers entitled to get wages for the 
period of the strike ? " 
On the first issue the workmen's case was that 
after the control on rice was lifted by the Travancore-
Cochin Government in April, 1954, the iuanagement 
-
t 
.. 
> 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
453 
which continued to sell rice to the workmen, charged

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