Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd.

MahajanJ. at 4 p.m., some at 4-30 p.m., and some at 5 p.m. The

stoppage ended at 8 p.m. in both the departments. By 10 p.m. the strike ended completely. The apparent cause for the strike was that the management of the Mills had expressed its inability to comply with the request of the workers to declare the forenoon of·the 1st November, 1948, as a holiday for solar eclipse. On thi;l 3rd November, 1948, the management put up a notice that the stoppage of work on the 1st N ovem-ber amounted to an illegal strike and a break in ser-vice within the meaning of the Factories Act (XXV of 1934) and that the management had decided that the workers who had participated in the said strike would not be entitled to holidays with pay as provided by the Act. Tb is position was not accepted by the Madras Labour Union. The Madras Government by an order dated the 11th July, 1949, made under section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), referred this dispute along with certain other disputes to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The adjudicator gave the award which was published in the Gazette on 12th October, 1950. By his award the adjudicator found that there could be little doubt that the stop-page of work by the night shift workers on the night of tbe 1st November, 1948, was a strike, that it was an illegal strike, since the textile industry is notified as a public utility industry and there could be no legal strike without a proper issue of notice in the terms pres-cribed by the Industrial Disputes Act. No such notice had been given. In view of this finding he upheld the view of the management that the continuity of service of the workers Wf!S bro!>en by the interruption caused by the illegal strike and that as a cornrnq uence 1952 the workers. who participated in such strike were not entitled to annual holidays with pay _under section Buckingham anrl Cru· na.tic 49-B ( 1) of the Factories Act. He, however, CQnsi-Go. Ltd. dered that the total deprivation of leave with pay ordered by the management was a severe punishment Workers of the and on the assumption that he had power to scrutinize Buckingha1n the exercise of the discreti0n by the in and Carnat-io manageme~t Go. Ltd. awarding punishment, reduced the punishment by 50 pet cent. and held that the workers would be deprived Jlahajan J. of only half their holidays with pay. The decision of the management was varied to this extent.

The Mills as well as the Union appealed against this decision to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. That Tribunal upheld the contention of the Mills that the adjudjcator had no power to interfere with and revise the discretion of the management exercised by it under section 49-B (1). It also upheld the contention of the Union that what happened on the night of the L;t November did not amount to a strike and did not cause any interruption in the workers' service. rrhis i~ wh.at the Tribunal said:-

,, It wonld be absurd to hold that non-permitted absence from work even for half an hour or less in the course of a working day would be regarded as inter-ruption of service of a workman for the purpose of the said section. \Ve are inclined to hold that the stoppage of work for the period for about 2 to 4 hours in the circumstances of the case is not to be regarded as a strike so as to amount to ·a break in the continuity of service of the workman concerned."

In the result the appeal of the Union on this point was allowed and it was ordered that holidays at full rates as provided for in section 49-A of the Factories Act will have to be calculated in respect of the opera-tives concerned on the footing that there was no break in the continuity of their service by the stoppage of work on 1st November, 1948.

In this appeal it was contended on behalf of the Mills that on a proper construction of section 49-B ( l)

222 SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS (1953]

1952 of the Factories Act (XXV of 1934) the manage-

ment was right in its decision that the continuity of Buckingham service was broken by the interruption caused by the and Carnatic illeg;;tl strike and that the workers were not entitled

Co. Ltd.

v. to annual holidays. with pay uudQr the said section Workers of the inasmuch as they would not have completed a period Buckingham of twelve months' continuous service in the factory, and Carnat1c and that the non-permitted absence as a result of

Go. Ltd. concerted refusal to work even for 2 to 4 hours in the Mahajan J. course of a working day amounts to an illegal strike

and consequently an interruption of service of a work-man for the purpose of section 49-B.

In onr judgment, this contention is well founded. Section 49-B provides- "Every worker who has completed a period of twelve months continuous service in a factory shall be allowed, during the subsequent period of twelve months, holidays for a period of ten, or, if a child, fourteen consecutive days, inclusive of the day or days, if any, on which he is entitled to a holiday under sub-section (l) of section 35 .......... ".

"Explanation.-A worker shall be deemed to have completed a period of twelve months continuous ser-vice in a factory notwithstanding any interruption in service during those twelve months brought about by sickness, accident or authorized leave not exceeding ninety days in the aggregate for all three or by a lockout, or by a strike which is not an illegal strike, or by intermittent periods of involuntary unemployment not exceeding thirty days ...................... "

It is clear that the benefit of this section is not avail-able in cases where the interruption in service is brought about by an illegal strike. Section 2 ( q) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947) defines "strike" as meaning-_ "a cessation of work by a body of persons em-ployed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common under-standing, of an~ number of persons who are or hiwe been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment."

The adjudicator found on the evidence and circw.m-Buckitiaha11i rMd Garnatic stances of the case that there was concert and combi-Go. Lt1. nation of the workers in stopping and refusing to v, resume work on the night of the 1st November. Workers of the He observed that the fact that a very large number of Buckinghani leave applications was put in for various re·asons and Garnatic Go. Ltd. pointed to the concerted action and that the appli-cation. given by the workers and their representa-Mnhajm J. tives also indicated that they were acting in combina-tion both in striking and refusing to go back to work on the ground that they were entitled to leave for the night shift whenever a half a day's leave was granted to the day shift workers. He further held that the refusal of the workers to resume work in spite of the attempts made by the officers and their own Madras Labour Union representatives indicated that they were not as a body prepared to resume work unless their demand was conceded.

In our. opinion, the conclusion reached by the adjudicator was clearly right and the conclusion can-not be a.voided that the workers were acting in concert.

That being so, the action of the workers on the night of the 1st November clearly fell within the definition of the expression "strike" in section 2( q) of the Industrial Disputes Act. We have not been able to appreciate the view expressed by the Appellate Tribunal that stoppage of work for a period of two to four hours /o and such non-permitted absence from work cannot be

regarded as strike. Before the adjudicator the only point raised by the Union was that it was a spon-taneous and lightning strike but it was not said by them that stoppage of work did not fall within the definition of "strike" as given in the Act. It cannot be disputed that there was a cessation of work by a body of persons in employed in the Mills and that they were acting combination and their refusal to go back to work was concerted. All the necessary in-gredients, therefore, of the definition exist in the pre-sent case and the stoppage of work on 1st November,

224 SUPREME CODR'l' ltEPOR'.t'S (1953) 1952 1948, amounted to a strike. It was not a case of an

individual worker's failure to turn up for work. It Iluckin,ghn1n a concerte d act10n · on t h e part o f a 1 arge num b er and carnatic wa~

co. Ltd. of workers. The Appellate Tribunal was thus in error

v in not regarding it as a strike and it had no discretion Workers of the not to regard what in law was a strike as not amount-Bl!ckingham ing to a strikff. If it cannot be denied that the stop-and Carnat.c page• of work on 1st November, 1948, amounted to a.

Co. Ltd. strike, then it was certainly an illega 1 strike because Mahajan J. no notice had been given ·to the management, the

Mills being a public utility industry.

It was contended by the President of the Union, who argued the case on behalf of the workers, that the Factories Act had no application to this case, because by a notification of the Government of Madras dated 23rd August, 1946, the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills had been exempted from the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Act and ~he provisions of sections 49-A and 49-B were not therefore attracted to it and that no substantial question of law in respect to the construction of the section fell to be decided by this Court and that being so, this Court should not entertain this appeal ·under article 136 of the Constitution. '!.'his contention has no validity. '!'he Mills were granted exemption from the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Factories Act because thei1· leave rules were in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Factories Act. These rules being in similar terms, the decision of the matter depends on the construction of the rules and this in-volves a substantial question of law.

Reliance was next placed on section 49-A of the Factories Act which provides that the provisions of the new Act would not operate to the prejudice of any rights which the workers were entitled to under the earlier rules and it was argued that under the leave rules of the Mills which prevailed pl'ior to the com-ing into force of the Factories Act, the workers were entitled to privilege leave and there was no provision in those rules similar to the one that has been made in section 49-B or in the new rules and that the Mills had no right to deprive them of leave by reason of 1952 the strike. This contention cannot be sustained because section 49-A (2) of the Factories Act pas n'o B ucliingl; am application to the case of the Carnatic Mills in view and Carnatic Co. Ltd. of the notification dated 23rd August, 1946. v.

Lastly, it was urged that the stoppage of .work on TVorlcers of th~ 1st November, 1948, was not a concerted action on B"c!cingham .the part of the workers and that several workers in and Carnatic Co. Ltd. their own individual capacity wanted leave on that date. In our opinion, in view of the facts and circum-stances detailed in the adjudicator's award this con-tention cannot be seriously considered. We concur in the view of the facts taken by the adjudica.tor that the action of the 859 workers on the night of 1st November, 1948, fell within the definition of the word "strike" as given in section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it waR an illegal strike and the workers thus lost the benefit of holidays that they would have otherwise got under the rules.

'rhe learned counsel for the appellant undertook on behalf of the management ex gratia that it would con-done the default of the workers on lst N overnber, 1948, and the cessation of work on that night would not be treated as depriving them of the holidays under the rules and we appreciate the spirit in which this under-taking was given and hope that the workers would also take it in that spirit.

The result is that the appeal is allowed, and the decision of the Labour Appellate Triburial on this point is Ret aside. In the circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

Agent for the appellant: 8. P. Vannri.