S. R. Das, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision dated April 24, 1950 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad confirming the decision dated February 2, 1950 of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, which had declared the one-day strike by the appellants that took place on November 7, 1949 to be an illegal strike. The relevant facts are as follows:
(2.) On October 13, 1949 the appellants through the Secretary of their Union gave a notice to the respondents, under S. 22(1), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that they proposed to call a one-day strike on the expiry of November 6, 1949 for the fulfillment of demands, 16 in number, noted therein. This strike notice was, in accordance with R. 85 of the Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sent to (1) the Conciliation Officer (Central), Dhanbad, (2) the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, (3) the Chief Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, (4) Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi and (5) A. D, C., Dhanbad. This notice was received at the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad, on October 15, 1949. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) held conciliation proceedings at Dhanbad on October 22, 1949, but the appellants, by their letter of the same date, declared to participate in the proceedings alleging that they were convinced that nothing would come out of the same and that the proceedings should, therefore, be considered "to be ceased." On the same day the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, addressed letter No. RLC/CON 5 (Token) 7910 to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, stating that after receipt of the notice of strike he had issued notice to the parties for conciliation, that the employers' representatives were ready to discuss the demands but the Union's representative filed a petition in writing saying that they did not want to participate in the proceedings and that no fresh material had been placed before him to change his view and that he was not in favour of recommending a reference of the demand to the Industrial Tribunal. The letter ended with a request that the Government may be informed of the situation. It appears that this report was received in the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, on October 25, 1949. Although the Chief Labour Commissioner, in his letter of November 17,1949 to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, states that the contents of the latter's report had already been communicated to the Ministry of Labour, a copy of the report was actually sent to and received by the Ministry of Labour only on that day. In the meantime on November 7, 1949 the appellants, about 700 in number, went on one-day strike as per their strike notice. Apparently the respondents contended that the strike was illegal and they made an application, under S. 8(2), Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948, to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, for a decision on the question whether the strike was legal or illegal. By his order dated February 2, 1950, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, declared that the strike was illegal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the appeallants, under S. 8(4) of the last mentioned Act, preferred an appeal to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad which, however, also held that the strike was illegal and that the conclusions arrived at by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) were correct and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The appellants thereafter applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.
(3.) The only question raised on this appeal is whether the strike was illegal. Section 24 (1) of the Act provides, inter alia, that a strike shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of S. 22 or S. 23 of the Act. Section 22(1) provides as follows: "22. (1) No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract - (a) without giving to the employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided, within six weeks before striking; or (b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or (c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or (d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings." Notice of strike having been given in terms of cl. (a) and 14 days having elapsed after the giving of such notice as required by cl. (b) and the actual strike having taken place after November 6, 1949, being the date specified in the strike notice, the only other question for consideration is whether the strike took place during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer, and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. Under S. 20 (1) a conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which a notice of strike under S. 22 is received by the Conciliation Officer. In this case the strike notice was received by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), who is the Conciliation Officer, on October 15, 1949 and, the conciliation proceedings, therefore, commenced on that date under S. 20 (1). The relevant portion of sub-s. (2) of that Section runs as follows : "(2) A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have concluded- (a) .............................." (b) where no settlement is arrived at, when the report of the conciliation officer is received by the appropriate Government or when the report of the Board is published under S. 17, as the case may be, or (c) .............................." The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), who is the Conciliation Officer in this dispute, is required by S. 12 to hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner and, without delay, investigate the dispute and to do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. In this case the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) held conciliation proceedings on October 22, 1949 but no settlement could be arrived at as the appellants declined to take part in the proceedings on the ground that they were convinced that nothing would come out of it, That being the position, under S.12(4) it became the duty of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to, "as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances and the reasons on account of which, in this case, a settlement could not be arrived at." Sub-Section (6) of this Section requires that the report shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government. As already stated, the conciliation proceedings commenced on October 15, 1949. The report, therefore, was to be submitted within fourteen days from that date, In point of fact the report was sent by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, on October 22, 1949 (which was well within 14 days from the commencement of the conciliation proceedings), with the request that the Government may be informed of the situation. Under sub-s. (4) the report has to be sent to the "appropriate Government" which according to the definition under S. 2(a) means, in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a mine, the Central Government. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) did not send the report direct to the Central Government but sent it to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, in accordance with what has been called the usual course and routine of official business. The report, however, was received by the Central Government on or about November 17, 1949 and it is only on such receipt that the conciliation proceedings are to be deemed to have concluded according to the provisions of S. 20 (2)(b). 'Prima facie', therefore, the strike which took place on November 7, 1949 was during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings as held by the authorities below.;