S.N.Guha Ray, J. - (1.) This petition in revision is directed against an order by which all the petitioners were convicted under Section 27, industrial Disputes Act on two counts, the first committed on 29-7-53 and the second on 16-8-53, petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 being each sentenced on each count to a fine of Rs. 25/- only or in default, to a week's simple imprisonment, and petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 each to a fine of Rs. 100/-only on each count or simple imprisonment for 30 days in default. There was an unsuccessful appeal by them. 1a. B. K. Pain, petitioner No. 3 and Abdul Hakim alias Moku mistry, petitioner No. 4 were admittedly the General Secretary and the President respectively of the Bengal Kagajkal Majdoor Union which counted among its members the workers of Mills No. 2 of the Titaghar Paper Mills Co. at Kankinara, of which Bookless, P. W. I was admittedly the Manager and Superintendent and petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Ram Naresh and Idris were admittedly workers. It is further an admitted fact that industrial disputes known as the 9th and the 10th Adjudications which started on the 10th July and 10th September respectively of 1952 were pending on both the dates, namely 29-7-53 and 16-8-53. Two sets of charge-sheets were admittedly submitted against 8 ash coolies during the pendency of these adjudications, one for their adoption of go-slow tactics, disobedience and the other for assaulting the Chief Engineer. Bookless, P. W. 1 on 9-4-53 found these coolies guilty of the charges on inquiry and directed their suspension till the company secured permission from the Tribunal for their dismissal under Section 33 (b) of the I. D. Act. This provided the occasion for an agitation on behalf of the workers demanding the withdrawal of the charge sheets, of the order of suspension, and of the application for permission and also the reinstatement of the workers Suspended. Bookless thought these demands to be unreasonable and, did not accede to them. Labour unrest in the Mills followed and the workers took up an attitude of non-co-operation. Attempts at conciliation failed. On 27-7-53, petitioner No. 3 B. K. Pain served a strike notice on Bookless who replied that the strike would be illegal in view of the pendency of industrial disputes before a tribunal and that the matter should be reconsidered. On the nest day, B. K. Pain informed Bookless that reconsideration was not possible and a notice was hung up at gate No. 1 of the Mills enumerating the demands of the workers. A conciliation meeting held on the 28th July in the presence of the Assistant Labour Commissioner was attended by the first three petitioners but their non-cooperative attitude did not permit any conciliation being brought about. On the 29th July, all the four petitioners instigated a strike and the workers left the departments in spite of the personal requests of Bookless to carry on the work. Ram Naresh and Idris who were themselves workers of the Mills joined the strike. Again on the 10th August, 1953, another strike notice was served by Pain and again Bookless informed him that it would be an illegal strike. On 14-8-53 Pain, wrote back to Bookless saying that the workers were not prepared to change their mind and on the 16th the petitioners again incited the workmen to go on strike and they did go on strike that day too. Ram Naresh and Idris amongst others went en strike that day also. On these facts all the four petitioners were charged with and convicted of an offence under Section 27, I. D. Act, on two counts, one for inciting the strike on 29-7-53 and the other for inciting the strike on 16-8-53. Ram Naresh and Idris who were liable under Section 26 also on each of these days were not charged with that offence in this trial.
(2.) The defence was a plea of not guilty. The learned Magistrate held on the evidence that the charges had been proved and the learned Sessions Judge on appeal concurred with that finding and maintained the convictions and the sentences.
(3.) The only points raised on behalf of the petitioners are : 1. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners instigated the strike on either day, the evidence of Bookless that they did so on the 29th July being directly in conflict with the evidence of P. ws. 2, 3, and 4. 2. The 16th August, 1953, was a Sunday and work on that day is optional on the part of the workers so that there could be no incitement to a strike on that day. 3. The authority given by the Government in this case under Section 34 does not show that the Government applied its mind to the particular offences for which the petitioners were tried and there is no difference in principle between a sanction for prosecution and an authority for it and reliance was placed on Jiwan Das v. Rabin Sen. 4. The strikes were not illegal, first because they were not in breach of contract and secondly because of Section 24 (3) as the so-called strikes were the consequences of an illegal lock out of the 8 ash coolies who were placed under suspension.;