D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal at the instance of the Coca -Cola Factory Workers Union is directed against the Single Bench judgment dated 15th October. 1984, rendered in Civil Writ No. 114 of 1981 allowing the petition and quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 29th October, 1980, rendered in Reference No. 10 of 1973 quashing the termination orders passed by the Management of the Punjab Beverages (Private) Limited, Chandigarh, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent -management, and ordering reinstatement of all the concerned workers, excepting 71 workmen who had settled with the Respondent -management and had abandoned their duties and 5 workers out of 20 workmen mentioned in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim, with 50 per cent backwages and other service benefits with continuity of service.
(2.) THE case set up by the Appellant before the Tribunal was that the Respondent -management used to manufacture soft drinks like Coca -cola, Fanta and Soda etc. To begin with, there was only one Workers' Union known as Coca -Cola Factory Workers' Union. This Union in the year 1971 served demand notice dated 21st December, 1971, on the Respondent -management on behalf of 131 workers. This demand notice was settled as per memorandum of Settlement dated 9th February, 1972. This Union thereafter served fresh demand notice on the Respondent -management on 24th June, 1972. It was the case of the Coca -Cola Workers' Union that the Punjab Beverages Workers' Union was the Respondent -management's sponsored Union; that that Union served on the Management and the Reconciliation Officer on 23rd June, 1972 the demand notice allegedly dated 26th May, 1972 virtually mentioning therein the very demands which had been mentioned by the Coca -Cola Factory Workers' Union in its demand notice dated 24th June, 1972; that the Conciliation Officer started parallel conciliation proceedings on the demands of the Punjab Beverages Workers' Union without the knowledge of the Appellant Union; that the Respondent -management in connivance with the Conciliation Officer got a settlement reached with the Punjab Beverages Workers' Union in regard to their demand, - -vide settlement dated 17th August, 1972, annexure P. 2; that when the Appellant Union came to know of the aforesaid farcical settlement, it reiterated its demand by fresh demand notice dated 8th March, 1973, which demands were taken up for conciliation by the Conciliation Officer; that the Respondent -management on 31st March, 1973 suspended 45 workers belonging to the Appellant Union including its President, Vice -President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Cashier and the Executive Members with a view to pressurise the Appellant Union in regard to its demand notice dated 8th March, 1973; that the Appellant Union represented majority of the workers; that as a result of the said provocative act on the part of the Respondent -management the workers went on lightning strike; that on 31st July, 1973, the Government made the following reference under Section 10 of the Act : (Annexure R. 4): Whereas the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, is of the opinion that an industrial dispute is apprehended between the Coca -Cola Factory Workers' Union and the management of the Punjab Beverages Private Ltd: Chandigarh, regarding the matters hereinafter appearing; And whereas the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, considers is desirable to refer the dispute for adjudication; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, is pleased to refer to the Labour Court, Chandigarh, the matters specified below for adjudication: Whether the strike by some of the workers of the Punjab Beverages Private Limited, Chandigarh, is illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. and also passed, the order stating that the continuation of the strike thereafter was to be illegal; that in view of this the Appellant Union called off the strike and gave a notice to that effect to the Respondent -management, annexure R -6, calling upon them to permit the workers to join duty; that the Respondent -management, however, did not permit the workers to join duty and a complaint regarding that was made to the concerned officer, - -vide Exhibit A. 4 in Reference No. 6 of 1973. On the other hand, the case set up by the Respondent -management before the Industrial Tribunal, as also in its writ petition, was that the settlement dated 17th August, 1972, with the Punjab Beverages Workers' Union was a genuine and bono fide settlement; that the Punjab Beverages Workers' Union was a genuine 1 workers union commanding majority of the membership of the workers; that after serving of the demand notice dated 8th March, 1973, the workers belonging to the Appellant Union stated slowdown strike; that when despite persuation by the Respondent -management they Continued their slow -down strike, the management suspended 45 workers who were protagonists of the slow -down strike; that the strike launched by the Appellant Union and its workers who, in any case, represented minority of the work -force of the Respondent -management, was illegal in view of the binding nature of the settlement dated 17th August, 1972, on the whole -body of workers, including the members of the Appellant Union in view of the provisions of Section 18(3) read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act; that the Respondent -management served individual notices upon the striking workers to resume work and they were also called upon to do so through public notices in the language newspapers, namely. 'Daily Milap' (Urdu), 'Daily Milap (Hindi), and 'Akali Patrika' (Punjabi) making it clear to them that if they did not join by the given date, their services would be terminated; that since the striking workers in question did not resume duty in response to the individual and public notices, their services were terminated with effect from 22nd May, 1973; that the reference made by the Government under Section 10 of the Act was not legal; and that the services of the striking workers having been terminated, question of allowing them to resume duty did not arise, as in the meantime the Respondent -management had recruited fresh hands to take their places. It was also their case that the striking workers had picketed the gate and by force were stopping the workers from entering the factory; that in view of the violence indulged in by the striking workers, the police was called; that the loyal workers were kept inside the factory and, that the workmen also issued a hand -bill giving reasons for the strike.
(3.) THE Industrial Tribunal framed the following four issues: (1) Whether 71 workmen out of the total workmen involved in the dispute in question had settled their case individually with the management and if not, what is its effect ? (2) Whether the strike resorted to by the workmen was illegal and on that account the management was justified in terminating the services of the workmen mentioned at Section No. 1 to 194 in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim? (3) Whether the workmen mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 20 in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim joined the alleged strike and did not otherwise absent themselves from duty and if so, whether the management could treat them to have left services of the management due to long absence? (4) Whether the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service? Since the legality of the strike formed subject -matter of a separate reference (Reference No. 4 of 1973) referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, the Industrial Tribunal did not render any finding in regard to the legality of the strike under issue No. (2), as it was of the view that even if the strike was assumed to be illegal, then too the action of the management in terminating the services of the workmen mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 194 in paragraph 1 and of 20 workers mentioned in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim was bad. So the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to examine the action of the Respondent -management on the assumption that the strike in question was illegal and unjustified and it ultimately came to the conclusion that the action of the Respondent -management in terminating the services of the striking workmen was not justified. By the time, the Industrial Tribunal gave its award, the Labour Court had not announced its award regarding the legality of the strike.;