- (1.) An industrial dispute relating to the lock out and closure of a factory arose between respondent No. 1, Messrs. Sur Iron and Steel Co. (Pvt. ) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') and its workmen represented by Sur Iron and Steel Co. Shrarnik Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union) and Sur Iron and Steel Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association'). Three issues were framed by the Government of West Bengal and referred for adjudication to the Fifth Industrial tribunal. These issues are as follows: "(1) Whether the lock out of the factory with effect from 22/04/1962, is justified (2) Whether the closure of the factory from 22/06/1962, is real and bona fide Whether the closure is beyond the control of the management and in the circumstances it is justified and (3) To what relief, if any, are the workers entitled -the tribunal answered both the first and the second questions against the workmen, holding that the lock out was justified, that the closure of the factory was real and bona fide and that, it was beyond the control of the management and, in the circumstances, justified. ' Consequently, the tribunal, by its award, held that the workers were not entitled to any relief. The Union alone has filed this appeal against this Award of the tribunal by special leave impleading the Company and the Association as respondents.
(2.) The facts relating to the first issue, as found by the tribunal, are that the Company was carrying on business in manufacture and sale of various types of articles, such as 'stone-crushers, Granulators, Welding Transformers, fire Fighting Equipment, etc. The factory was situated at Nos. 8/5 and 9, canal Street, Calcutta and was employing more than 500 workmen. The factory used to observe every Sunday as the weekly off day. On 19/04/1962, the Company received a letter from the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation conveying An information that certain restrictions had been imposed on the use of electricity by the State government, as are salt of which the supply of electricity on every Saturday was to be curtailed, so that there would be no supply of electricity for running the factory from 7 a. m. to 10 p. m. on Saturdays. The letter further stated that the Company should observe every Saturday as. the off day instead of Sunday. Thereupon, the Company issued a notice on 20/04/1962, informing all the workmen that, with effect from 21/04/1962, Saturday instead of Sunday would be the off day in the factory until further orders. The notice was circulated amongst the workmen and the original one even bears a number of initials indicating that it had been circulated amongst the staff. It appears that, in pursuance of this notice, the workmen did not attend the factory on Saturday, 21/04/1962. The next day, on April 22, 1962, which was Sunday and which, according to the notice, was to be a working day the workmen again did not attend the factory to join their duties. Some of them actually collected near the gates, but they refused to do any work, claiming that the factory should be closed on sunday as before. The management made repeated requests and tried to persuade the workmen to join work. There was partial success in persuading some of the workmen to join work, but the other workmen did not permit their going in to do the work and announced that they had decided to go on a strike. As a result of this step taken by the workmen, the factory declared a lock-out the same day on 22/04/1962, because the work in the factory came to a complete stand still on account of the illegal strike resorted to by the workmen. These facts have been found by the tribunal after a full consideration of the evidence led on behalf of the Company and the Union. The tribunal also took into account subsequent correspondence which was addressed on behalf of the Union to the government authorities and indicated that the plea of the union, which was put forward before the tribunal that the workmen tried to report for duty on Sunday 22/04/1962) but were prevented from doing work by the officers of the Company, were incorrect. These findings are all findings of fact and nothing has been shown to us on behalf of the Union which would induce us to reassess the evidence and re-examine these findings of the tribunal in this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
(3.) On these facts, the only point that was argued before us on behalf of the workmen was that the change in the weekly off day from Sunday to saturdaywithout complying with the requirements of Section 9-A of the Industrial disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') , was illegal, so that the workmen were within their rights in ignoring the notice and in insisting that they should not be made to work on Sunday) 22/04/1962. On the applicability of Section 9-A of the Act) the position can be examined in two alternative aspects. Section 9-A applies to matters enumerated in the Fourth schedule to the Act. There does not appear to be any specific entry in that schedule which would cover a condition of service relating to weekly off day. In the alternative) we can take notice of the contention put forward by learned counsel for the Union before us that the grant of weekly off day will fall in item 4 of the Fourth Schedule. Even if this submission be accepted) it does not advance the case of the workmen) because the tribunal has specifically found that the government of the State of West Bengal in the Labour Department had issued a notification under Section 9-B of the Act laying down that no notice under Section, 9-A was required to be served in respect of matters specified in Items Nos. 4) 6 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act for a period of 3 months from the date of publication of the notification in the calcutta Gazette. This notification was published on 10/04/1962) without complying with the requirements of Section 9-A. Consequently) even if it be held that the iteration of weekly off day from Sunday to Saturday was one of the conditions of service governed by Section 9-A as falling under Item no. 4 of the Fourth Schedule) compliance with the requirements of Section 9-A was not required to be carried out by the Company because of the exemption granted by this notification issued by the State government under Section 9-B of the Act. It is clear that the workmen went to a strike quite illegally and unjustifiably. The Company had not changed the weekly off-day to suit its own convenience. It had been compelled to do so because of the curtailment of electric power on Saturdays by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation under the orders of the State government. On Sunday) 22/04/1962) the workmen not only refrained from doing work and) thus) went on a strike) but even prevented other workmen, who were persuaded to do the work) from doing their duty. The Company, therefore) could not possibly carry on its work and that situation was brought about by the work friend themselves by their illegal acts. In the circumstances) the tribunal was quite right in holding that the lock-out was fully justified.;