Case: The Management Of Chandramalaiestate, Ernakulam Vs. Its Workmen And Another

case that the workmen were charged only the cost price of rice has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. The fact that workmen were not compelled to purchase rice from the management is hardly material; the management had opened the shop to help the workmen and if it is found that it charged excess rates, in fairness, the workmen must be reimbursed. The award in so far as it directed refund of the excess amount collected on the basis of the figures found by the Tribunal cannot therefor be successfully challenged. 6. On the question of the cumbly allowance it is important to note that the only defence raised was that the demand had been made too late. The admitted fact that it had been regularly paid year after year for many years till it was stopped in 1949 is sufficient to establish the workmens case that payment of a proper cumbly allowance had become a part of their conditions of service.We do not think that the mere fact that the workmen did not raise any dispute on the managements refusal to implements this condition of service till August 9, 1955, would be a sufficient reason to refuse them such payment. The management had acted arbitrarily and illegally in stopping payment of these allowances from 1949 to 1954. They cannot now be heard to say that they should not be asked to pay it merely because the years have already gone by. It is reasonable to think that even though the management did not pay the allowance the workmen had to provide blankets for themselves at their own expense.The Tribunal has acted justly in directing payment of the allowances to the workmen for the years 1949 to 1953. The correctness of the rates awarded by the Tribunal is not challenged before us. The Tribunals award on this issue also is therefore maintained. 7. This brings us to the question whether the tribunal was right in awarding 50 per cent of emoluments to the workmen for the strike period. It is clear that on November 30, 1955, the Union knew that conciliation attempts had failed. The next step would be a report by the Conciliation Officer, of such failure to the Government and it would have been proper and reasonable for the Union to address the Government at the same time and request that a reference should be made to the Industrial Tribunal. The Union however did not choose to wait and after giving notice on December 1, 1955, to the management that it had decided to strike from December 9, 1955, actually started the strike from that day. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that there was nothing in the nature of the demands to justify such hasty action and in fairness the Union should have taken the normal and reasonable course provided by law by asking the Government to make a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act before is decided to strike. The main demands of the Union were about the cumbly allowance and the price of rice. As regards the cumbly allowance they had said nothing since 1949 when it was first stopped till the Union raised it on August 9, 1955. The grievance for collection of excess price of rice was more recent but even so it was not of such an urgent nature that the interests of labour would have suffered irreparably if the procedure prescribed by law for settlement of such disputes through industrial tribunals was resorted to. After all it is not the employer only who suffers if production is stopped by strikes. While on the one hand it has to be remembered that strike is a legitimate and sometimes unavoidable weapon in the hands of labour it is equally important to remember that indiscriminate and hasty use of this weapon should not be encouraged. It will not be right for labour to think that for any kind of demand a strike can be commenced with impunity without exhausting reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement of their objets. There may be cases where the demand is of such an urgent and serious nature that it would not be reasonable to expect labour to wait till after asking the Government to make a reference. In such cases, strike even before such a request has been made may well be justified. The present is not however one of such cases. In our opinion the workmen might well have waited for some time after conciliation efforts failed before starting a strike and in the meantime to have asked the Government to make the reference. They did not wait at all. The conciliation efforts failed on November 30, 1955, and on the very next day the Union made its decision on strike and sent the notice of the intended strike from the 9th December, 1955, and on the 9th December, 1955, the workmen actually struck work. The Government appear to have acted quickly and referred the dispute on January 3, 1956. It was after this that the strike was called off. We are unable to see how the strike in such circumstances could be held to be justified. 8. The Tribunal itself appears to have been in two minds on the question. Its conclusion appears to be that the strike though not fully justified, was half justified and half unjustified; we find it difficult to appreciate this curious concept of half justification. In any case, the circumstances of the present case do not support the conclusion that the strike was justified at all.We are bound to hold in view of the circumstances mentioned above that the Tribunal erred in holding that the strike was at least partially justified. The error is so serious that we are bound in the interests of justice to set aside the decision. There is, in our view, no escape from the conclusion that the strike was unjustified and so the workmen are not entitled to any wages for the strike period.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are unable to see anything that would justify us in interfering with these conclusions of facts. Indeed the documents on which the Tribunal has based its conclusion were not even made part of the Paper-Book so that even if we had wanted to consider this question ourselves it would be impossible for us to do so. We are satisfied that the Tribunal was right in its conclusions as regards the cost price of rice to the management and the price actually realised by the management from workmen. The managements case that the workmen were charged only the cost price of rice has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. The fact that workmen were not compelled to purchase rice from the management is hardly material; the management had opened the shop to help the workmen and if it is found that it charged excess rates, in fairness, the workmen must be reimbursed. The award in so far as it directed refund of the excess amount collected on the basis of the figures found by the Tribunal cannot therefor be successfully challenged6. On the question of the cumbly allowance it is important to note that the only defence raised was that the demand had been made too late. The admitted fact that it had been regularly paid year after year for many years till it was stopped in 1949 is sufficient to establish the workmens case that payment of a proper cumbly allowance had become a part of their conditions of service.We do not think that the mere fact that the workmen did not raise any dispute on the managements refusal to implements this condition of service till August 9, 1955, would be a sufficient reason to refuse them such payment. The management had acted arbitrarily and illegally in stopping payment of these allowances from 1949 to 1954. They cannot now be heard to say that they should not be asked to pay it merely because the years have already gone by. It is reasonable to think that even though the management did not pay the allowance the workmen had to provide blankets for themselves at their own expense.The Tribunal has acted justly in directing payment of the allowances to the workmen for the years 1949 to 1953. The correctness of the rates awarded by the Tribunal is not challenged before us. The Tribunals award on this issue also is therefore maintainedThe present is not however one of such cases. In our opinion the workmen might well have waited for some time after conciliation efforts failed before starting a strike and in the meantime to have asked the Government to make the reference. They did not wait at all. The conciliation efforts failed on November 30, 1955, and on the very next day the Union made its decision on strike and sent the notice of the intended strike from the 9th December, 1955, and on the 9th December, 1955, the workmen actually struck work. The Government appear to have acted quickly and referred the dispute on January 3, 1956. It was after this that the strike was called off. We are unable to see how the strike in such circumstances could be held to be justified8. The Tribunal itself appears to have been in two minds on the question. Its conclusion appears to be that the strike though not fully justified, was half justified and half unjustified; we find it difficult to appreciate this curious concept of half justification. In any case, the circumstances of the present case do not support the conclusion that the strike was justified at all.We are bound to hold in view of the circumstances mentioned above that the Tribunal erred in holding that the strike was at least partially justified. The error is so serious that we are bound in the interests of justice to set aside the decision. There is, in our view, no escape from the conclusion that the strike was unjustified and so the workmen are not entitled to any wages for the strike period.