Case: Management Of Fertilizer Corporation Ofindia Vs. The Workmen

a letter dated October 13, 1966 sent by the Labour Commissioner to the appellant and the unions concerned containing a copy of the telegram sent by him on that date regarding the conciliation proceedings being fixed on October 17, at Chandigarh and requesting the parties to appear before him. That the said telegram and letter have been sent is proved by the evidence of R. W. 1 who is an Assistant in the Labour Commissioners Office at Chandigarh and who has produced the necessary file pertaining to the same. That the telegram sent by the Labour Commissioner has been delivered is also proved by R. W. 3 who has produced the delivery sheets in respect of the telegram. Relying upon these circumstances quite naturally, Mr. Gokhale strenuously urged that the receipt of the telegram issued by the Labour Commissioner is purposely denied by the Union to profess ignorance about the conciliation proceedings being taken up on October 17, 1966, because the Union was in no mood to participate in those proceedings.42. Mr. Sen, no doubt relied upon the evidence of the workmens witness No. 3, Shri Ramthirtha, President of the Union, that no telegram was received from the Labour Commissioner regarding conciliation proceedings to take place on October 17, 1966, but this witness himself accepts that the telegram sent by Mr. Vidhyalankar was received by him. We are inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the denial by the Union of the receipt of the telegram sent by the Labour Commissioner cannot be accepted.43. Mr. Gokhale, learned counsel, referred us to be decision of this Court in The Management of Chandramalai Estate, Ernakulam v. Its Workmen, 1960-3 SCR 451 = (AIR 1960 SC 902 ) and particularly to the following observations at p. 455 (of SCR) = (at p. 904 of AIR)."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 objects. There may be case 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."Mr. Gokhale urged that there was absolutely no urgency in the case before us because the management was prepared to pay the bonus as admitted by them and the controversy was really regarding the additional ex gratia payment. Further, counsel pointed out that the Conciliation Officer had not made any report about conciliation having failed and in fact that telegram sent by the Labour Commissioner as late as October 13, 1966 clearly showed that he was still continuing the proceedings. Counsel also pointed out that after having separated from the Delhi meeting on October 15, 1966, promising to consider the proposals put before it by the management and communicate the same to the management, the leaders of the workmen incited them to go on strike at the meeting held the very next day and actually the strike itself commenced from October 17, 1966. No doubt Mr. Sen, learned counsel, pointed out that there was nothing for the management to consider in their meeting the demands of the workmen, because the Cabinet decision was well known. He also urged that the workmen obviously felt that the management was not adopting a reasonable attitude and hence they resorted to a strike which was justified under the circumstances.44. We may also indicate that there is evidence, let in by the management, to show that during the strike period and even prior to that, several of the workmen resorted to violence and other acts of indecency. Evidence has also been let in to show that the workmen continued the strike even after a notification, dated October 31, 1966 was issued by the President of India prohibiting the strike and requiring the workers to report for duty. We do not propose to dwell on these matters, because we have only to consider the justification or otherwise of the strike from October 17, to October 31, 1966.45. The management was prepared to pay at all times the bonus as per the Bonus Act. They had also announced on September 9, 1966 the introduction of the production bonus scheme. They were actively taking part in the conciliation proceedings. The appellant also made to the Union certain proposals on October 15, 1966 at the conference held at Delhi which proposals the representatives of the workmen promised to discuss with the workmen and give a reply to the appellant. But, on October 16, 1966, at a meeting of the workmen, they were incited to go on strike. The receipt of the telegram of October 13, 1966 of the Labour commissioner, fixing October 17, 1966 for further discussions and inviting the Union and the management to attend the meeting, is falsely denied by the Union. The receipt of Sri Vidhyalankars telegram requesting the Union to put off going on strike by one day is admitted by the President of the Union, but that request was not complied with by the workmen. Sri Vidhyalankar, it must be remembered, was representing the workmen in certain conciliation meetings All these circumstances clearly show that the demand of the Union regarding ex gratia bonus cannot be considered to be of an urgent and serious nature. They also show that the launching of the strike was unjustified. It therefore follows that the workmen are not entitled to any wages for the period of the strike viz., from October 17 to October 31, 1966. To this extent the award of the Industrial Tribunal will have to be set aside.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the appellant was not bound to implement the directions contained in the Circular letter of the Government dated December 21, 1965, containing the Cabinet decision of December 2, 1965, nor his further contention that the claim of the workmen for bonus should have been adjudicated upon exclusively as per the provisions of the Bonus Act without reference to the Cabinetwe are of opinion that the draft letter of October 14, 1966 (which is discussed later on by us) constitutes an offer made by the appellant to the workmen to opt for payment of bonus either according to the Cabinet decision or according to the production bonus scheme, it becomes unnecessary for us to investigate the nature of the power that is exercised either by the President or the Central Government when giving directions to the appellant company, under the Articles of Association. For the same reason the question as to whether the circular letter of the Central Government, dated December 21, 1965 is a direction or order, as envisaged by the Articles of Association, does not also arise for consideration.25. The decision of the Central Cabinet dated December 2, 1965 has been announced by the Minister in the Lok Sabha on December 9, 1965 and this decision has been communicated to the appellant by the concerned Ministry by Circular letter dated December 21, 1965. There is not controversy that if the Cabinet decision is given effect to, the claim of the workmen of ex gratia payment of bonus as in previous years will have to be accepted, unless the appellant is able to establish its plea that the production bonus scheme was introduced with the consent and approval of the Central Government in lieu of ex gratia payment of bonus. As to whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing this plea is an aspect which will be adverted to by us at a later stage.Mr. Gokhale attempted to explain away the effect of the draft letter of October 14, 1966 by urging that the Cabinet decision has been communicated only after the Union had submitted its charter of demands as early as August 19, 1966. So long as the Cabinet decision has been communicated and option was given to the workmen, it does not in our opinion matter at what stage the communication was made to the labour. Under the circumstances, it is idle for the management to contend either that the appellant is not bound to comply with the Cabinet decision or that the workmen are not entitled to make any claim on the basis of that decision.29.That leaves us with the alternative contention, raised by the management, that production bonus scheme was introduced with the consent and approval of the Central Government and that on its introduction the ex gratia payment of bonus stood eliminated.No doubt this is the stand that has been taken in the note attached by the appellant in its Circular letter dated September 9, 1966. We have already adverted to that note in the earlier part of our judgment. No materials, whatsoever, have been placed by the appellant in support of this contention.The production bonus scheme itself does not state that it is in lieu of all other ex gratia payments. There is no order of Government on record to show that the Circular letter of December 21, 1965 has been modified by the Government in any manner whatsoever. The only evidence relied on by the appellant in this connection was the statement of R. W. 7, Shri Wadhera.He says that after a consideration of all the relevant factors and in consultation and with the approval of the Central Government, a production bonus scheme was introduced by the appellant with effect from year 1965-66 and that he was himself present at a meeting in the Ministry when a decision was taken that the Corporation might introduce the production bonus scheme and that the workmen should be paid production bonus in addition to the bonus payable under the Bonus Act. He further speaks to the fact that production bonus scheme replaced the ad hoc ex gratia bonus scheme replaced the ad hoc ex gratia bonus made in the past years.Excepting this bare statement in the Central Government to this effect, or modifying its previous decisions, has been placed before the Tribunal, Under those circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the appellant has not established that on the introduction of the production bonus scheme, all payments of ex gratia bonus ceased.Once it is held, as we do, in agreement with the Tribunal, that the appellant was bound to implement the Circular of the Central Government, dated December 21, 1965, it follows that the appellant was bound to pay the ex gratia payment of bonus, as claimed by the workmen for the years in question and that the appellant is further not entitled to deduct the advanced wages of a 4 days paid for the year 1965-66.The decision of the Tribunal, on this aspect is correct and is affirmed.Shri Wadehra, in his affidavit dated June 24, 1967 has again stated that the Chief Conciliation Officer invited representatives of the workmen to come to Delhi to discuss the matter with the higher authorities of the appellant Corporation. Shri Wadehra further states that he himself joined the negotiations which took place at Delhi from October 15, 1966 and that the said negotiations were attended by the Managing Director and Chairman on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Vidhyalankar attended the proceedings along with certain other representative of the workmen. Mr. Wadehra further states that on the evening of October 15, 1966 the workmens representatives intimated that they would discuss the outcome of the negotiations at Delhi with the general body of the workmen at Nangal, the next day, and then return to Delhi and report the reaction of the workmen regarding the proposals discussed during the negotiations, But, instead of keeping this promise the representatives of workmen addressed a public meeting on the evening of October 16, 1966 and incited the workmen to strike work from October 17, 1966. The strike was actually commenced from October 17 Mr. Wadehra also stated that a telegram from the Secretary of the Labour Ministry inviting all the parties to attend the conciliation meeting at Chandigarh on October 17, 1966 was received but the labour did not care to attend thatManagement of Chandramalai Estate, Ernakulam v. Its Workmen, 1960-3 SCR 451   = (AIR 1960 SC 902  )