P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. - (1.) While reference No. 150 of 1958 was pending in respect of an Industrial dispute between the Appellant and its workmen relating to Bonus, Casual leave and sick leave etc., and after the management had suspended six of its workmen on certain charges of misconduct for having refused to operate some machines, another worker Shri Darshan Singh, a Helper of a Blowing Machine also refused on 25-1-59 when called upon by the management to work the machine in the absence of Shri Daulat Ram, Machine man and was accordingly suspended the same day. On hearing this news the workman went to see one of the Partners of the Appellant and demanded that the order of suspension passed against Shri Darshan Singh should be cancelled and he be reinstated as a Helper. As the management was not agreeable to reinstate the Helper workman, the workers went on a lightening strike. Since the workmen came on strike conciliation efforts were made but in spite of the persuasion of the Labour Officer. M. W. 2, the Labour Inspector M. W. 4 and by the management, Respondents 2 to 24 along with others did not report for duty although it is stated the Appellant was willing to employ them. Certain charge-sheets were served on the workmen towards the end of January to which replies were given. Thereafter notices were sent to the Respondents 2 to 15 and 17 to 24 asking them to resume work by certain specified dates and when they did not resume work other notices were sent requiring the said Respondents to show why their names should not be struck off and asked them to submit their reply by a certain date. In so far as Respondent 16 is concerned a notice was served on him on 4-3-59 in which it was mentioned that he was absent since 13-2-59 without any leave and that he should resume duty by 6-3-59. He was further asked to explain by 8-3-59 why his name should not be struck off. None of the Respondents Nos. 2 to 24 either acknowledged these notices nor sent a reply. The management thereafter by letters dated 23-2-59, 4-3-59 and 17-3-59 informed the aforesaid Respondents that since they were no longer interested in the employment their names were struck off from the muster rolls. It is alleged that from 25-1-59 till their names were struck off from the muster rolls, the Respondents sat outside the Mill gate and in spite of persuasion by the Labour Officers as well as by the management who were genuinely desirous of their resuming work, they did not join duty and as a consequence the management was compelled to employ others in order to keep the mill going. It is also stated that during this period those workmen who wanted to join duty were permitted to do so and their services were entertained. It is also the case of the management that the strike fizzled out after the striking workmen failed to get rations and thereafter they had abandoned the service. On 19-3-59 a demand notice on behalf of the workmen was served on the management as a result of which the conciliation proceedings commenced. But even then according to the report of the Conciliation Officer while the management was willing to employ the workmen, the Respondents were not willing to resume work till the suspended workmen were also allowed to resume duty.
(2.) Ultimately on 26-8-59 the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Jullundur under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to determine whether the termination of services of 31 workmen whose names were mentioned therein was justified. It may be mentioned here that out of these 31 workmen 8 workmen had resumed their duties and were no longer interested in the proceedings. The Labour Court after receiving the statement of claim and recording the evidence on behalf of both the management and the workmen passed an Award on 31-10-61 which was published in the Gazette of 8-12-61. By this Award the claim of the workmen was rejected on the ground inter alia: (a) that they had resorted to illegal strike; (b) that the management did not in fact terminate the services of the workmen concerned in the case and never meant to take action against them for having gone on strike. On the other hand management was always prepared to take them back and was requesting them through the Labour Inspector and the Labour Officer to end the strike and to resume duty but the workers went on insisting that the suspension orders passed on their co-workmen should first be cancelled; (c) that the workmen were adamant and as such there was no alternative for the management except to terminate their services and take fresh hands who are still continuing in its service and (d) that no evidence was produced by the workmen to prove that any of them ever requested the management to resume duty or that the management had turned down any such request.
(3.) Against this Award of the Labour Court a Writ Petition was filed by the Respondents in the High Court of Punjab. A Single Bench of that Court by its Judgment dated 6-12-64 held that in law the plea that the workers had abandoned the service of the Appellant could not be sustained, but on the other hand it was the management which had terminated their services. In this view the case was remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh decision. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the management against this decision but later it was dismissed as withdrawn. On remand the Labour Court by an Award dated 10-9-65 which was published in the Gazette on 1-10-65 held that the plea of the workmen that there was a lock out by the management was not substantiated, on the other hand it was they who had gone on strike; that the strike was illegal because of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court in Reference No. 150 of 1958; that the question as to whether the management had terminated the services of the concerned workmen or not was not a matter which was res integra in view of the judgment of the Punjab High Court in the Writ Petition referred to above; and in the alternative as the termination took place by virtue of letters dated 23-2-59, 4-3-59 and 17-3-59 without holding an enquiry, it was not valid. In the result the Labour Court directed reinstatement of Respondents 2 to 24. In so far as Surat Singh Respondent 16 was concerned, it was found that there were no standing orders in force applicable to the Appellant, as such it was not justified in dismissing him for absence without leave. It was also held that the Respondents were not entitled to wages from 25-1-59 to 17-3-59. They would however only be entitled to half the back wages from 18-3-59 to the date on which the Award would become enforceable and from that date till the date of their reinstatement, Respondents Nos. 2 to 24 would be given full back wages. Against the said Award this Appeal has been filed by Special Leave.;