Kidwai, J. - (1.) The relations between the Patiala Cement Works and its employees were not satisfactory. A conciliation Board was appointed but it failed to resolve the disputes. Accordingly, on 5-11-1951, H.H. the Rajpramukh of the State of Pepsu issued a Notification under Section 10 (1) (c) Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) referring to the Industrial Tribunal the disputed points. "By a subsequent Notification dated 10-1-1952, the number of matters referred to arbitration was increased. Later it seems to have been discovered that these Notifications were defective inasmuch as, although the points referred were common to all the workmen, the parties to the dispute were stated to be the Management: of the Bhupendra Cement Works and 'certain workers'. Accordingly on the 23-8-1952 another Notification was issued superseding the earlier Notifications and referring to the Tribunal an industrial dispute "between the workmen and the Management of the Bhupendra Cement Works."
(2.) In the meanwhile, on 12-8-1952, it must now be accepted as a fact in view of the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, that some of the workers, including Mahnga Ram, Janak Raj Soni, Harchand Singh and Daulat Singh, stopped work for a short time after they had commenced it. In the charge sheets that were delivered to these persons by the Management immediately they were not charged with having struck work themselves but were accused of having incited others to strike and of having done some acts subversive of discipline. Nevertheless, in' the application made against each worker separately to the Industrial Tribunal it was alleged that there had been a strike for half an hour which was illegal in view of Section 23(b) Industrial Disputes Act. It was further alleged that the workers had been guilty of inciting others to strike and of acts subversive of discipline within the meaning of Standing Order 16(iii) and (ix). Other allegations were also made and it was prayed under Section 33 Industrial Disputes Act that leave be given to discharge the workman whose conduct was complained of.
(3.) Although the Management presented an application against each workman separately, the workmen submitted a joint reply through their General Secretary. They pleaded that there had been no strike and no inflammatory speeches but that, in accordance with a resolution passed by the workers at a meeting held on 11-8-1952, the workmen while going to work had shouted slogans to the effect that the disputes should be settled urgently and that the tribunal should give an early decision. They denied that there had been any slogans against the Government or the Management or that any meeting was held on 12-8-1952, and though they admitted that there had been a delay of 15 or 20 minutes in going to work, they denied that this was the result of any concerted action.;