LexTHE STATESMAN LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 228 THE STATESMAN LTD. v. THEIR WORKMEN January 22, 1976 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND N. L. UNTWALIA. JJ.j Industrial Di.~pule-11/e;taf strike followed b_v lock-out-Lock-out not lifted despite the workers' conciliatory attitude-Payment of lu1/f wages during strikt~ period-If reasonable. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-When the Court would interfere. Even when a bonus dispute was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the workn1en of the appellant resorted to rude tactics to press their earlier charter of demands, which took the turn of an illegal and disorderly strike. The management declared a lockout. On the day following the dec- laration of lockout, thei workmen requested the management to lift the lockout proferring peaceful resumption of work and asking for an interim relief on their economic demands. · The management did not agree to lift the lockout. Even· tually, however, the lockout was lifted and the strike called off. On the question of wages during the strike period, the Industrial Tribun<il, apportioning fault to hoth the p<1rties. directed that the mana_gcmcnt should pay half the wages to the employees during the strike period. Dismissin.1?: the appeal, HELD : ( 1) There is much to be said in favour of the view of the Tribunal that the blameworthiness may be equally apportioned bet\veen the parties. Where the strike is illegal and sequel of a lockout legal, the Court has to vie\v the whole course of developments and not stop with examining the initial legitimacy. If one side or other behaves unrea&onably or the overall interests of good industrial relations warrant the Tribunal making such directions regarding strike period wa~s as will meet with justice, fairplay and pragmatic v1isdom, there is no error in doing so. The power of the Tribunal is flexible. [236 F; 233 D··E] India Marine Service, [19~3] 3 SCR 575, followed. Jn the instant case there \vas a pending industrial dispute when the Unions sprang a strike notice. The strike being illegal, the lockout that follo\ved, be- came a legal, defensive measure. But the management could not behave un- reasonably merely because the lockout was born lawfully. If, by subsequent conduct, the Unions had sho\vn readiness to resume work peacefully, the refusal to restart the industry was not right and the initial legitimacy of the lockout lost its virtue by this blemished sequel. f232 G-Hl (2) In an· appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court would interfere with the A\vard under challenge only if extraordinary flaws or grave injusti...-:e· or othet recognised grounds are made out. [231 E·F] Bcnf,!a[ Che111ical, [1959] Suppl. 2 SCR 136, 141; and Associated Cen1e11t Co111pa11ies Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 1552, 1554, followed. In the instant case the direction of the Tribunal that the Company should pay tiffin allowance at the rate of 50 paise on working days to thoe. en1ployees in the staff canteen and that the members of the subordinate staff shoul.9- be sup- plied with \Vnrm coats did not call for interference. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1970. Appeal by special leave. from the Award dated the 2-9-1969 of the 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No. 321 of 1967 published in the Calcutta Gazette dated the 16-10-1969. /"• .. STATESMAN LTD. v. WORKMEN (Krishna lyer, !.) S. Chaudhury and D. N. Gupta for the Appellant. Kapil Sibbal for the R·espondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 229 KRISH~A IYER, J. There is a tragic touch in processual protrac- tion as this little /is lasting a whole decade pathetically illustrates. Such lingering legal machinery is by-passed by both sides in practice largely because, by sheer slow motion, it denies relief when needed and drives parties to seek remedies by direct action or political inter- vention. What elegant alibi can there be for the routine charter of demands put forward in the middle of 1966, ripening into an indus- trial reference in Nov0mber 1966 after a flare-up of illegal strike and failure of conciliation, taking around 3 years for rendering a short award and a little over five years for reviewing it in this Court? Law-makers whose vocal concern for industrial peace and constitu- tional promises for th·e working class is being put to the test by failure in the field will, we hope, alert themselves. Labour li~ation can be a course
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.