INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN: INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals by special leave arise out of certain labour disputes between the employer, Messrs. Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and the Indian Standard Wagon Company Limited, Burnpur, Asansol, (hereinafter compendiously referred to as the Company) on one side and some of their employees on the other. Messrs. Martin Burn Limited, 12 Mission Row, Calcutta, are the Managing Agents of the Company. Originally, the case out of which Civil Appeals 44 and 45 have arisen was known as the case of 144 workmen, and the other case out of which Civil Appeals 336 and 337 have arisen was known as the case of 74 workmen. At present, the number of workmen involved in the four appeals is much smaller. Civil Appeals 44 and 45 go together as they arise out of the same decision Civil Appeal 44 being on behalf of the Company in respect now of 104 respondent workmen, and Civil Appeal 45 on behalf of 103 out of the said 104 workmen. Similarly, Civil Appeals 336 and 337 go together and arise out of a common decision. Civil Appeal 336 being on behalf of the Company in respect of 10 workmen in three groups and Civil Appeal No. 337, on behalf of 31 workmen. The facts of these two sets of appeals are somewhat different, and it will be conducive to convenience as also to clarity of discussion of the issues involved, if the two sets are dealt with separately.

(2.) We take up first Civil Appeals 44 and 45. With regard to these appeals the relevant facts are these. In 1947 the Asansol Indian Iron and Steel Workers' Union with one Prof. Abdul bari as President was recognised by the Company. On the death of Prof. Bari, one Mr. Michael John became President and the Union continued to be recognised by the Company. In 1951 the Company was declared a Public Utility Service under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was alleged on behalf of the Company that on September 12, 1951, a procedure was established for an amicable settlement of such disputes as might arise between the Company and its employees. The procedure was substantially this: in case of a dispute regarding an individual employee, the dispute would be referred first to the Shop-in-charge and then to a works Committee, and the Union would discourage an individual approach to the management of the Company; if the Works Committee was able to effect a settlement, it would be final; but if it failed, the Union could take up the case on merits, with the management of the Company. The above procedure, it is stated, was accepted at a joint meeting of the Works Committee held on November 13, 1951. Then we come to 1953. The case of the company was that on January 18, 1953, certain workers of the Hot Mills section resorted to an illegal stoppage of work, and on the next day all the three shifts of the Hot Mills section commenced a 'slow down' strike. This adversely affected the production of the Company, and it addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Union on January 27, 1953, drawing the attention of the Union to the illegal stoppage of work and 'slow down' tactics; the letter further stated that if there was no improvement in the attitude of the workers, the Company would be compelled to take such action as it considered necessary to bring about resumption of normal work. Two days later, the workers of the Hot Mills section submitted certain demands, but not through the Union. With regard to the demands made by the workers of the Hot Mills section, they were informed that joint petitions, without reference to the Union or the Works Committee, would not be accepted and so long as normal work was not resumed, no consideration could be given to the demands made. It appears that the Union also informed the Company that the workers concerned had made no representation to the Union, and the Union did not support their activities. It is obvious that at this stage there was a cleavage between some of the workers of the Hot Mills section and the Union. The Company then issued certain notices to the workmen advising them of the consequences of their action. The workers in their turn elected a committee of six men to press their demands; the Company, however, refused to negotiate with this committee. The impasse continued and in March 1953, there was a tripartite conference between the Labour Commissioner of the Government of West Bengal, the General Manager of the Company and the President of the Union. Before this the Company had issued a notice closing 'B' and 'C' shifts of the Hot Mills section. The tripartite conference came to certain conclusions but failed to restore harmony, and one of the reasons for its failure was that the representatives of the workers of the Hot Mill section were not included therein. The workers' committee protested against the closing of two shifts, and the trouble continued till on April 8, 1953, the Company issued a notice to the workmen that unless they voluntarily recorded their willingness to do normal work, they would be considered as no longer employed by the Company from 2 p.m. on April 10, 1953. It was stated that on April 11, 1953, some 700 workers resorted to an illegal stoppage of work. The Labour Minister, Government of West Bengal, then visited Asansol, and met the representatives of the workers, and of the Union and the Management. He made some suggestions, which did not however end the trouble. Meanwhile, an Action Committee was set up by the workmen. There was a strike on April 27, 1953, The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Asansol, promulgated an order under S. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and; the situation continued to worsen. Iron and Steel were declared to be essential to the life of the community under the provisions of the West Bengal Security Act, 1950, and leave to all employees was stopped by the Company. Some 38 workers of different departments were discharged for alleged disobedience of orders, and on August 18, 1953, the Action Committee gave a strike notice to the Company, stating that the workmen would resort to strike and abstain from duty from September 11, 1953. We now come to the crucial date, August 23, 1953. On this date the Company declared a lock-out and issued a notice, which must be set out in full because a good part of the argument of learned counsel for both parties has centered round this notice:

(3.) Of the workmen with whom we are now concerned, 98 workmen reported for duty on October 1, 1953, 4 reported for duty on October 2, 1953, and one on October 9, 1953. They were not, however, allowed by the Company to resume their duties. This led to an industrial dispute which the Government of West Bengal referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal. The two issues were -(1) whether the Company was justified in keeping the workmen mentioned in three lists A, B and C, out of employment; and (2) whether the said workmen were entitled to employment and any other relief and/or compensation. The Tribunal held that all the workmen who turned up on or before October 2, 1953, in pursuance of the notices issued by the Company were entitled to be taken back into employment without condition and of the two men who came later, one was ill of typhoid fever and had sufficient reason for reporting himself for duty on October 9, 1953. On the second issue, the Tribunal said: