Wanchoo, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar. It relates to the discharge of 119 workmen of the respondent who were employed as cane carrier mazdoors or as cane carrier supervisors or jamadars. All these were seasonal workmen. It is necessary to set out in some detail the circumstances leading to the discharge. The respondent is a sugar factory and the crushing season starts usually in the first half of November each year. We are concerned in the present appeal with November and December 1960. It appears that from the season 1956-57, the respondent introduced an incentive bonus scheme in the factory. The scheme continued thereafter from season to season with certain changes. It also appears that in the beginning of each season, the respondent used to put forward the incentive bonus scheme and consult the workmen. The same thing was done when the season 1960-61 was about to start in November 1960. But the scheme for this season proposed by the respondent contained certain changes which were apparently not acceptable to the workmen. One of the features in the scheme was that the crushing of sugar cane per day should be 32.000 maunds. The general secretary of the union of the workmen suggested certain alteration for the consideration of the respondent on November 7, 1960 and one of the main alternations suggested was that the norm for per day's crushing should be 25,000 maunds of cane and thereafter incentive bonus should be given at a certain rate. No agreement seems to have been reached on the incentive bonus scheme, and the complaint of the respondent was that the secretary incited the workmen to go-slow in consequence of the change in the scheme. Consequently mild go slow in the cane carrier department which is the basic department in a sugar mill began from the very start of the season on November 10, 1960. The respondent's case further was that on November 27, 1960, the workmen in the cane carrier department started in combination with one another to go-slow deliberately and wilfully and in a planned manner and thus reduced the average daily crushing to 26,000 maunds cane which was much less than the average crushing in previous seasons. This conduct of the workmen was said to be highly prejudicial to the respondent and besides being technically unsafe, had brought into existence an acute shortage in the fuel position which might have resulted in the complete stoppage of the mill and major breakdown of the machinery. When the position became serious the respondent issued a general notice on December 15, 1960 inviting the attention of the workmen concerned to this state of affairs which had been continuing at any rate since November 27, 1960. This notice was in the following terms: "At the instigation of Shri J. Krishna the General Secretary of your Union, you, since the very beginning of this season, have been failing in your duty to ensure adequate and regular loading of the cane carrier, and with effect from the 27th November, 1960, you, in combination with each other, have deliberately and with resorted to clear go-slow tacties, a fact openly admitted by the above-named General Secretary of your Union in presence of the Labour Superintendent and Labour Officer, Muzzaffarpur, in course of discussions held on the subject in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner on the 6th December. 1960. You have deliberately reduced the average daily crushing the more or less 26,000 maunds out of which more than 2000 maunds is due to the newly introduced device of direct feeding of the cane carrier by cane carts weighted during nights and not attributable to any effort on your part. Thus the actual crushing given by you is practically something between 23,000 and 24,000 maunds only which is highly uneconomical and technically unsafe for this factory with an installed crushing capacity of more than 1200 tons a day. About 14,000 bales of extra bagasse kept in stock as reserve have already been consumed in the past 12 days or so and now the factory in faced with a situation when at any moment its biolers may go out of steam for want of bagasse-fuel leading to an abrupt stoppage of the mills and finally resulting into a major breakdown of machineries. It is therefore hereby notified that unless you volunlarily record your willingness in dividually to discharge your duties faithfully and diligently by feeding the cane carrier so as to give a minimum average daily crush of 32,000 maunds, excluding stoppages other than those due to overloading or underbading of the cane carrier, you will be considered to be no longer employed by the company. You must record your willingness in the office of the Factory Manager on or before 4 p.m. of Saturday the 17th December, 1960, failing which you shall stand discharged from the service of the company without any further notice with effect from 18th December, 1960 and your place will be filled by recruiting other labour to man the cane carrier station."
(2.) This notice was put on the noticeboard along with translations in Hindi and Urdu and it was also sent individually to the workmen in the cane carrier department. A copy was also sent to the secretary of the union with a request to re-consider his stand and advise the workmen concerned to submit their willingness as desired by the respondent in the notice in question either individually or even collectively through the union. The secretary of the union replied to this notice on the same day and said that it was "full of maliciously false and mischievous statements." The secretary also denied that the workmen had adopted go-slow tactics or that he had advised, the workmen to adopt such tactics. Finally the secretary said, that it was simply fantastic to ask a worker to give an undertaking to crush at least 32,000 maunds per day and if the service of any workman was terminated on his not giving the undertaking, the responsibility would that of the respondent itself. The respondent's case was that three workmen gave undertaking as required in the notice while the rest did not. Thereafter the situation in the factory deterated and the workmen grew more and more unruly and men started entering the factory without taking their attendance token. In consequence of this attitude of the workmen, the respondent issued a notice at 5 p.m. on December 17, 1960 which was in the following terms: "The following workers of the cane carrier station who failed to record their willingness in factory manager's office by 4 p.m. this day the 17-12.1960, to work faithfully and diligently in accordance with the management's notice dated 15th December, 1960, stand discharged from the company's service and their names have been struck off the rolls with effect from 18th December 1960. From now on, the workers concerned have forfeited theft right to go to and occupy their former place of work and any action contrary to this on their part will make them liable to prosecution for criminal trespass. Their final account will be ready for payment by 4 p.m. on the 19th December 1960, when, or whereafter, they may present themselves at the company's Time Office for receiving payment of their wages and other dues, if any, during working hours", and then mentions the names of 119 workmen of the cane carrier department. Thus the services of the workmen concerned stood discharged from December, 18, 1960 under this notice. This was followed by a general strike in pursuance of the notice served on the respondent by the union on December 17, 1960. The strike continued up to December 22, 1960 when as a result of an agreement it was decided that the case of the discharged workmen and the question of wages for the strike period be referred to adjudication. Consequently a joint application by both parties was made to Government on December 21, 1960. The Government then made a reference of the following two questions to the tribunal on January 25, 1961: 1. Whether the discharge of workmen mentioned in the Appendix was justified. If not whether they should be reinstated and/or they are entitled to any other relief 2. Whether the workmen be paid wages for the period 16-00 hrs. on December 18, 1960 to 8-00 hours on December 22, 1960
(3.) It may be mentioned that the respondent had held no enquiry as required by the Standing Orders before dispensing with the services of the workmen concerned. Therefore, when the matter went before the tribunal the question that was tried was whether there was go-slow between November 27, 1960 and December 15, 1960. The respondent led evidence, which was mainly documentary and based on the past performance of the factory to show that there was in fact go-slow by the workmen concerned during this period. The appellants on the other hand also relying on the record of the respondent tried to prove that the cane carrier department had been giving normal work in accordance with what had happened in the past in connection with cane crushing. That is how the tribunal considered the question on the basis of the relevant statistics supplied by both parties and also evidence whether there was go-slow during this period or not. After considering all the evidence it came to the conclusion that there was go-slow during this period. Consequently it held that the discharge of the workmen was fully justified. It therefore answered the first question referred to it in favour of the respondent. The second question with respect to wages for the strike period was not pressed on behalf of the appellants and was therefore decided against them. Thereafter the appellants came to this Court and obtained special leave; and that is how the matter has come up before us.;