Appeal No 133 of 1951
Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court on the 1st December 1950 from the Judgment dated the 24th April 1950 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad in Appeal No 1 of 1950 arising out of Order dated the 2nd February 1950 of the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Dhanbad
N C Chatterjee section L Chhibber with him for the appellants
section P Sinha section N Mukherjee with him for the res pondent
December 12
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision dated April 24 1950 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad confirming the decision dated February 2 1950 of 430 the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Dhanbad which had declared the one day strike by the appellants that took place on November 7 1949 to be an illegal strike
The relevant facts are as follows On October 13 1949 the appellants through the Secretary of their Union gave a notice to the respondents under section 221 of the  that they proposed to call a one day strike on the expiry of November 6 1949 for the fulfilment of demands 16 in number noted therein
This strike notice was in accordance with rule 85 of the rules framed under the  sent to 1 the Conciliation Officer Central Dhanbad 2 the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Dhanbad 3 the Chief Labour Commissioner Department of Labour Government of India New Delhi 4 Secretary Ministry of Labour Government of India New Delhi and 5 ADC Dhanbad
This notice was received at the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Dhanbad on October 15 1949 The Regional Labour Commissioner Central held conciliation proceedings at Dhanbad on October 22 1949 but the appellants by their letter of the same date  declined to participate in the proceedings alleging that they were convinced that nothing would come out of the same and that the proceedings should therefore be considered to be ceased
 On the same day the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Dhanbad addressed letter No RLCCON 5 Token 7910 to the Chief Labour Commissioner New Delhi stating that after receipt of the notice of strike he had issued notice to the parties for conciliation that the employers  representatives were ready to discuss the demands but the Union s representative filed a petition in writing saying that they did not want to participate in the proceedings and that no fresh material had been placed before him to change his view and that he was not in favour of recommending a reference of the demand to the Industrial Tribunal
The letter ended with a request that the Government 431 may be informed of the situation
It appears that this report was received in the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner New Delhi on October 25 1949
Although the Chief Labour Commissioner in his letter  of November 17 1949 to the Regional Labour Commissioner  Central Dhanbad states that the contents of the latter s report had already been communicated to the Ministry of Labour a copy of the report was actually sent to and received by the Ministry of Labour only on that day
In the meantime on November 7 1949 the appellants about 700 in number went on one day strike as per their strike notice
Apparently the respondents contended that the strike was illegal and they made an application under section 8 2 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act 1948 to the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Dhanbad for a deci sion on the question whether the strike was legal or illegal
By his order dated February 2 1950 the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Dhanbad declared that the strike was illegal
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the appellants under section 8 4 of the last mentioned Act preferred an appeal to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad which however also held that the strike was illegal and that the conclusions arrived at by the Regional Labour Commissioner Central were correct and accordingly dismissed the appear The appellants thereafter applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court
The only question raised on this appeal is whether the strike was illegal
Section 24 1 of the Act provides inter alia that a strike shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22 or section 23 of the Act
Section 22 1 provides as follows  22
1 No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contracta without giving to the employer notice of strike as hereinafter provided within six weeks before striking or 56 432 b within fourteen days of giving such notice or c before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid or d during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings
 Notice of strike having been given in terms of clause a and 14 days having elapsed after the giving of such notice as required by clause b and the actual strike having taken place after November 6 1949 being the date specified in the strike notice the only other question for consideration is whether the strike took place during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings
Under section 201 a conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which a notice of strike under section 22 is received by the Conciliation Officer
In this case the strike notice was received by the Regional Labour Commissioner Central who is the Conciliation Officer on October 15 1949 and the conciliation proceedings therefore commenced on that date under section 201
The relevant portion of sub section 2 of that section runs as follows A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have concluded a       b where no settlement is arrived at when the report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government or when the report of the Board is published under section 17 as the case may be or c      
The Regional Labour Commissioner Central who is the Conciliation Officer in this dispute is required by section 12 to hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner and without delay investigate the dispute and to do all such things as 433 he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute
In this case the Regional Labour Commissioner Central held conciliation proceedings on October 22 1949 but no settlement could be arrived at as the appellants declined to take part in the proceedings on the ground that they were convinced that nothing would come out of it
That being the position under section 12 4 it became the duty of the Regional Labour Commissioner Central to as soon  as practicable after the close of the investigation send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by himfor ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances
and the reasons on account of whichin this case a settlement could not be arrived at 
Subsection 6 of this section
requires that the report shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government
As already stated the conciliation proceedings commenced on October 15 1949
The report therefore was to be submitted within fourteen days from that date
 In point of fact the report was sent by the Regional Labour Commissioner Central to the Chief Labour Commissioner New Delhi on October 22 1949 which was well within 14 days from the commencement of the conciliation proceedings with the request that the Government may  be informed of the situation
Under sub section 4 the report has to be sent to the  appropriate Government  which according to the definition under section 2 a means in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a mine the Central Government
The Regional Labour Commissioner Central did not send the report direct to Central Government but sent it to the Chief Labour Commissioner New Delhi in accordance with what has been called the usual course and routine of 434 official business
Thereforehowever was received by the Central Government on or about November 17 1949 and it is only on such receipt that the conciliation proceedings are to be deemed to have concluded according to the provisions of section 202b
Prima facie therefore the strike which took place on
November 7 1949 was during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings as held by the authorities below
Shri N C Chattanooga however argues that in point of fact the conciliation proceedings came to an end when the appellants had withdrawn from the proceedings and the Regional Labour Commissioner Central had Bent his report
It is by a legal fiction introduced by section 20 2 b that the conciliation proceedings are prolonged until the actual receipt of the report by the appropriate Government
According to Shri N C Chatterjee the conciliation pro ceedings should be held to  terminate when the Regional Labour Commissioner Central sent his report within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings
The difficulty in accepting this  argument is that while the word send is used in section 12 4 and the word  submitted in section 126 the word used in section 20 2 bis  received 
That word obviously implies the actual receipt of the report
To say that the conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have concluded when the report should in the ordinary course of business have been received by the appropriate Government would introduce an element of uncertainty for the provisions of section 22 1 d clearly contemplate that the appropriate Government should have a clear seven days  time after the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings to make  up its mind as to the further steps it should take
It is therefore necessary that the beginning of the seven days  time should be fixed so that there would be certainty as to when the seven days  time would expire
It is therefore provided in section 20 2 b that the proceedings shall be deemed to have 435 concluded where no settlement is arrived atwhen the report is actually received by the appropriate Government
Shri N C Chatterjee on the other hand strongly urges and not without some force that on that construction it may be possible for the Government or its officers to withhold the report  designedly or the report may be lost in course of transit or may be actually received after the expiry of the date fixed for the strike in the notice under section 22 I
Shri N C Chatterjee also points out that it will not be possible for the workers to know when the report is actually received and their right to strike may thus be taken away from them  Shri N C Chatterjee contends that the Government cannot take advantage of its own wrong
While we feel considerable force in Shri N C Chatterjee s argument based on hardship we are bound to assume that the
public officers concerned would act fairly and properly
Further it is not a case of the Government taking advantage of its own wrong as suggested by Shri N C Chatterjee for here we are concerned with a dispute between the employers and the employees and there is no material before us to justify our attributing the misdeeds if any of the Regional Labour Commissioner Central or of the Chief Labour Commissioner to the respondents the employers who are entitled to take their stand on the language of the law
The Court can only construe the statute as it finds it and if there is any defect in the law it is for other authority than this Court to rectify the same
Shri N C Chatterjee also urges that the Regional Labour Commissioner Central should have under section 12 sent his report to the appropriate Government which in this cage means the Central Government and he should not have sent the report to the Chief Labour Commissioner
Assuming that that is the position then
the fact will still remain that the Central Government did not receive the report and therefore the conciliation proceedings did not come to an end when the strike took place
Shri 436 N C Chatterjee also suggests that the Chief Labour Commissioner should have returned the report to the Regional Labour Commissioner Central because under the law the report should not have been made to him
He however did not return thesame to the Regional Commissioner but took upon himself tofor ward the same to the Labour Ministry
In the circumstances Shri N C Chatterjee urges on the authority of Chaturbhuj Ram Lal vs Secretary of State for India 1 that the Chief Labour Commissioner must be deemed to be the agent of the Central Government for the purpose of receiving the report
We adjourned this case in order to enable Shri N C Chatterjee to ascertain whether there was any delegation of authority in this behalf by the Central Government to the Chief Labour Commissioner
Shri N C Chatterjee has not been able to discover any such delegation of authority
It seems obvious to us that the Chief Labour Commissioner cannot possibly be regarded for this purpose as the Central Government
In point of fact by a notification in the Gazette of India dated April 5 1947 the Chief Labour Commissioner has been appointed as a Conciliation Officer
and therefore in conciliation proceedings conducted by him he has to submit his report to the Central Government
It follows therefore that the Chief Labour Commissioner must be an authority separate from the Central Government
According to rule 85 to which reference has been made the strike notice has to be sent amongst others to the Chief Labour Commissioner as well as to the Department of Labour of the Government of India which again
indicates that the two are different entities
The Chief Labour Commissioner is therefore only the channel or post office through which correspondence between the Regional Labour Commissioner Central and the Central Government is to pass and he cannot possibly be regarded as an agent of the Central Government for the purpose of receiving the report
The Chief Labour Commissioner 1 AIR 1927 All 2i5
437 being the official channel the ruling relied upon by Shri N C Chatterjee can have no application to the facts of this case
For reasons stated above we are of opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below on this point are correct and that this appeal must be dismissed
In the peculiar circumstances of the case however we think that there should be no order as to costs and the parties should bear their own costs
Before concluding we must draw the attention of the authorities concerned to the slack and unbusinesslike manner in which the matter was dealt with in the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner
The Act requires that the Conciliation Officer must submit his report within 14 days from the commencement of conciliation proceedings and then on receipt of the report by the appropriate Government the conciliation proceedings are to be deemed to have concluded
Although factually the conciliation proceedings terminate when a settlement is arrived at before the Conciliation Officer or when it is found that no settlement can be arrived at the Act by a legal fiction prolongs the conciliation proceedings until the actual receipt of the report by the appropriate Government and goes on to provide that the appropriate Government must have seven days  time to consider what further steps it would take under the Act
Up to the expiry of this period of 7 days the Act permits no strike but after that period is over the employees are left free to resort to collective action by way of a strike
Indeed it is on the basis of these provisions that the date of strike has to be carefully selected and specified in the notice of strike to be given by the employees under section 22 1 of the Act
Thus even a cursory perusal of the Act makes it clear that time is of the essence of the Act and that the requirements of its relevant provisions must be punctually obeyed and carried out if the Act is to operate harmoniously at all
In this case the conciliation officer submitted his report on October 438 22 1949 ie well within 14 days from the commencement of the conciliation proceedings as required by section 12 6 of the Act
The report was sent through what has been called the routine official channel
Admittedly it was received in the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner at New Delhi on October 25 1949 but surprisingly it was not passed on to the Ministry of Labour which is also in New Delhi until about November 17 1949
The employees had no means of knowing when the report was actually received by the Central Government which is the appropriate Government in this case or when the period of 7 days after such receipt expired
But in the belief entertained we think quite legitimately that the official business had been conducted regularly and promptly the employees went on strike on November 7 1949 as previously notified  It now transpires that the report had not been actually received by the Central Government and therefore on the letter of the law the strike must be hold to be illegal and the employees must face and bear the consequences of an illegal strike and may even be deprived  of benefits to which they would otherwise have been entitled
This hardship has been thrown upon the employees for no fault of their own but simply because of the callous indifference or utter inefficiency and slackness apparently prevailing in the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner which cannot be too strongly deprecated
It is to be hoped that public officers would in the discharge of their official duties in future show a greater sense of responsibility than what they have done in the case before us
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
A conciliation proceeding cannot be deemed to have concluded under section 20 2 b of the  in a case where no settlement has been arrived at as soon as the Conciliation Officer sends his report
It can be deemed to have concluded only when the report is actually received by the appropriate Government
1  429 The Chief Labour Commissioner New Delhi is not in the absence of any express delegation of powers by the Central Government the agent of the latter for the purpose of receiving the report of a Conciliation Officer
The appellants who had sent notice of their intention to strike declined to participate in conciliation proceedings which were initiated by the Regional Labour Commissioner and the latter sent his report to the Chief Labour Commissioner New Delhi on October 22 1949
The report was received by the Chief Labour Commissioner on October 25 but a copy of the report was sent by the Chief Labour Commissioner and received by the Ministry of Labour only on November 17
Meanwhile the appellants went on strike on November 7 Held confirming the decision of the Industrial Tribunal that under section 20 2 b of the Act the conciliation proceeding held by the Regional Labour Commissioner concluded only on November 17 when his report was received by the Central Government and as the appellants went on strike before that date it was a strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and therefore illegal under section 22 1 d of the Act
The provisions of several sections of the  show that time is of the essence of the Act and the requirements of its relevant provisions must be punctually obeyed and carried out if the Act is to operate harmoniously