Management of Hindustan Cables Ltd. vs Labour Court, Hyderabad and Another

T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.—This appeal arises out of the order in Writ Petition No. 11184 of 1983 by which the appellant-company was directed to pay wages to the workmen during the period of strike and lock-out.

The factual background to the dispute referred to by the Labour Court, was as follows :

The appellant-company is a Government of India undertaking engaged in the manufacture of cables supplied to the telecommunications department. It was having weekly holiday on Sunday. Subsequently, the weekly holiday was changed to Thursday by negotiations. While so, on May 6, 1979 the company proposed staggering holidays among different sections of the workmen so that the factory can work for seven days in a week without being completely closed on one day in the week and a notice was put up to that effect. The respondent-Union opposed the idea on May 12, 1979 and it is said that the company was not willing to reconsider its decision. On June 6, 1979, the workmen went on strike. Negotiations were held and on June 9, 1979 the company withdrew its proposal and the strike was called off on the same day. However, forty-eight workmen who had been engaged for meeting the additional work consequent upon the factory working for seven days with staggered holidays, were given notice of termination and seven workmen who had been promoted were reverted. The workmen immediately went on tool-down strike on June 10, 1979 and consequently, the company declared lock-out from June 11, 1979. Ultimately there was a settlement between the company and the Union on June 17, 1979 by which the company agreed to absorb the forty eight employees as and when vacancies arise and give back the promotions to seven employees who were reverted, and lifted the lock-out. It was also agreed that the claim of the workmen for wages for the period they were on strike June 4, 1979 to June 10, 1979 and the period of lock-out June 11, 1979 to June 17, 1979, would be referred to as an industrial dispute u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, a reference was made by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 720, dated October 22, 1979 of the following questions :

Whether the demand of Hindustan Cables Limited Employees Union for payment of wages for the period of tool-down strike/lock-out from June 4, 1979 to June 17, 1979 is justified ?

If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?

The Labour Court found that though the strike was not illegal inasmuch as the company was not a public utility within the scope of Section 23 and did not require notice, the strike was not justified because the workmen could have had the issue of staggered holidays referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Labour Court also found that the demand for reinstatement of the workmen who had been recruited only for meeting the additional work-load due to the introduction of seven day a week, and the termination due to the abandonment of the seven day a week proposal and the consequent hunger strike and tool-down strike as well as the detention of the buses far away from the factory forcing the workmen to go on foot for considerable distance, justified the lock-out. The Labour Court was, therefore, of the view that the workmen are not entitled to the wages for both the periods of strike as well as the lock-out.

The workmen filed the above writ petition questioning the findings of the Labour Court. The learned single Judge observed that when there is a weapon in the hands of workmen to organise a peaceful strike to ventilate their grievances, going on strike which is legal cannot be said to be unjustified unless they resort to violent activities or causing damage to the properties etc. He further observed that though there is a right to declare lock-out, it had been held by the Supreme Court that it should not be unjustly invoked as a measure of victimisation, and under those circumstances, the declaration of lock-out must be held to be illegal. He, accordingly, allowed the writ petition and directed the company to pay wages to the workmen for the relevant period.

In this appeal, the learned counsel for the company submitted that there was no justification in interfering with the findings of fact even if on the evidence on record the learned single Judge could have come to a different conclusion. It was also submitted that the company was a public sector undertaking which was interested in augmenting the production of cables for supply to the vital telecommunications sector and in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Umesh Nayak (1994 II LLJ 836), resort to strike without exhausting other means for conciliation could not be considered to be a justificable action. It was submitted that in the circumstances, the award of the Labour Court should be restored.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workmen submitted that no proper notice u/s 9A of the Act had been given with reference to the change in the weekly holiday and since the company had been adamant in spite of the appeal of the workmen not to change the holiday, they resorted to peaceful strike which should be accepted to be justified in the circumstances of the case. The counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Others, and Workmen of Sur Iron and Steel Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Sur Iron and Steel Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, . It was further submitted that where the termination of workmen was only a case of victimisation, the tool-down strike on June 10, 1979 was a protest which was indicated by the fact that ultimately those workmen had been taken back by the company. It was argued that in this background, the learned single Judge was persuaded to accept that the lock-out was not justified, and hence his order should be maintained.

We have given anxious consideration to the matter. We find that the question was not whether the strike and lock-out was illegal, but only whether the strike and lock-out was justified. The Labour Court held that the strike was not justified but the lock-out was justified and that on that finding the workmen were not entitled to wages. The learned single Judge had disagreed with the findings of the Labour Court in the view that a peaceful strike without any violence or damage to property cannot be considered to be unjustified and a lock-out in the absence of any violence by the workmen would be unjustified. Though no authority has been placed before us for the proposition that a strike cannot be said to be unjustified unless the workmen resort to violence, it could have been an acceptable legal inference as an obverse of the proposition given in the decision of the Supreme Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, that it was well-settled that the use of force or violence or acts of sabotage resorted to by the workmen during a strike disentitled them to wages for the strike period. That proposition was on the basis that labour being a weaker party, the right to strike should be taken as legitimate weapon when there is not violence. However, the Supreme Court has pointed out in the recent judgment (supra) that with the emergence of the organised labour, particularly in public undertakings and public utility services, the old balance of economic power between the management and the workmen has undergone a qualitative change and have acquired the power of holding the society at large to ransom thereby compelling the managements to give in on their demands whether reasonable or unreasonable. The Supreme Court observed that the enquiry whether the strike is justified, is essentially an enquiry into the facts and has to be decided only by the authority primarily invested with that jurisdiction. It was also decided that the question that arises is whether the dispute was of such a nature that its solution could not brook delay and await resolution by the mechanism provided under the law and such action, when the legal machinery is available to resolve the dispute, may be hard to justify excepting exceptional cases where there is reason for not resorting to dispute resolving machinery. In view of this law laid down by the highest Court of the land, the finding of the Labour Court that the workmen were not justified in resorting to strike without attempting to resolve the dispute by negotiation or conciliation proceedings, did not require any interference. With regard to the lock-out also there was clear evidence before the Labour Court for coming to the finding that the workmen had created such a tense situation that it was not possible to run the factory and hence, the lock-out was justified on the facts of the case. It was also a sequel to the unreasonable demand of the workmen and the wild-cat strike on June 9, 1979 by downing the tools. The Supreme Court has observed in the Syndicate Bank v. Umesh Nayak (supra), that the justness or otherwise of the action of the employer and the employees has to be examined on the anvil of the interests of the society which such action tends to affect and it is more imperative in the public sector since the management in the public sector is not a capitalist and the labour an exploited lot, and both are paid employees and owe their existence to the direct investment of public funds. When we test the award of the Labour Court in this philosophy, we have to necessarily come to the conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court that the strike was unjust and the lock-out was justified and consequently the workmen were not entitled to the wages for the period of strike and lock-out, was an appropriate finding. We, therefore, allow the appeal and restore the award of the Labour Court. No costs.