Case: Management of Pradip Lamp Works Vs. Pradip Lamp Workers' Karmachari Sangh &amp; Another

a party is entitled to an adjournment for producing its evidence is a matter of discretion and the exercise of discretion cannot be assailed on appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution.8. The second point strongly urged by Shri Gokhale relates to the grant of full wages to the workmen for the remaining period of the lock-out. If the blame for the lock-out was apportionable to both the parties then, according to the submission, full wages could not be awarded. I such cases the normal practice, argued the learned Advocate, us to award half of their wages. In support of this submission reference was, to begin with made to a decision of this Court as India General Navigation and Railway Co. v. Their Workmen (1960) 2 S.C.R. 1. At page 31 of the report this Court said :"As regards the remaining workmen the question is whether the Tribunal was entirely correct in ordering their reinstatement with full back wages and allowances on and from August 20, 1955. till reinstatement. This would amount to wholly condoning the illegal act of the strikes. On the findings arrived at before us, the workmen were guilty of having participated in an illegal strike, for which they were liable to be dealt with by their employers. It is also clear that the inquiry held by the appellants was not wholly regular as individual charge-sheets had not been delivered to the workmen proceeded against. When the blame attaches to both the parties, we think that they should divide the loss half and half between them. We, therefore, direct that those workmen whose reinstatement by the Tribunal is up held by us, should be entitled only to half of their wages during the period between the date of the cessation of the illegal strike (i.e., from August 20, 1955) and the date the award became enforceable. After that date they will be entitled to their full wages on reinstatement".9. The other decision cited on this point is reported as India marine Service Private Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1963) 3 S.C.R. 575. At page 583 of the report it was observed thus :"It is true that the strike was intended to be a token one. But the object of that strike being to circumvent settlement in an amicable manner, even though the company was ready for such settlement. We have no doubt that strike was unjustified. It is in the light of this finding that the lock-out has to be judged. In our opinion, while the strike was unjustified the lock-out when it was ordered on November 13, 1968 was justified. It seems to us, however, that though the lock-out was justified at its commencement its continuance for 53 days was wholly unreasonable and, therefore, unjustified. In a case where a strike is unjustified and is followed by a lock-out which has because of its long duration, become unjustified it would not be proper course for an industrial tribunal to direct the payment of the whole of the wages for the period of the lock-out. We would like to make it clear that in a case where the strike is unjustified and the lock-out is justified the workmen would not be entitled to any wages at all. Similarly where the strike is justified and the lock-out is unjustified the workmen would be entitled to the entire wages for the period of strike and lock-out. Where, however, a strike is unjustified and is followed by a lock-out which becomes unjustified a case for apportionment of blame arises".10. In that case also the blame for the situation was apportioned roughly half and half between the company and the workmen with the result that the workmen were given half of their wages for the period in question.11. The respondents learned Advocate submitted in reply that the management had been adopting dilatory tactics and there was a very trivial instance of slapping a workman which had led to a demand by the workmen for an apology from the offending party and this had led to the strike and the lock-out. In the background of this situation, the learned Advocate contended, the order giving full wages to the workmen was fully justified. It was emphasised that for one day when the strike was held to be illegal, the workmen have been deprived of their wages completely. Thereafter they were always willing to work but the management declared a lock-out and continued the same without any justification. The learned Advocate referred us to a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd. v. Their Employees [1955 - II L.L.J. 444] in support of his submission that the assault on a workman was not a matter of such a serious nature as would justify the management to declare the lockout, more particularly to continue it for such a long duration.12. In our opinion, it was incumbent on the Tribunal to apply its mind to the question of apportionment of blame on the two parties and to its effect on the amount of wages to be awarded to the workmen for the period of the lock-out after February 28, 1964. The order of the Tribunal ignoring this important aspect is infirm and is difficult to sustain. In so far as the first question is concerned, prima facie, the order of the Tribunal does appear to be somewhat arbitrary and injudicious and it would have been more appropriate exercise of judicial discretion to adjourn the case to the following day for the production of the appellants evidence, if necessary, on payment of costs. Had we decided to remit the case back to the Tribunal for considering the question of the effect of both parties being blameworthy for the lock-out on the amount of wages to be awarded, we would have perhaps thought it proper also to direct the Tribunal to permit the appellant to adduce evidence. This evidence, we were informed, was only sought to be adduced on the question of apportionment of blame.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]In this connection our attention made by the appellant to the Tribunal on September 29, 1966 seeking an opportunity for producing the witnesses named therein, but the prayer was disallowed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal disallowing the prayer was described by the learned Advocate to be discriminatory and violative of the recognised standards of judicial impartiality. Had the Sangh been compelled to start its evidence, then, so proceeded the augment, the appellants oral evidence could not be closed because the case was adjourned to the following day without concluding the recording of the evidence of the Union and on that day the remaining evidence of the management could be produced in the normal course.In our opinion, it was incumbent on the Tribunal to apply its mind to the question of apportionment of blame on the two parties and to its effect on the amount of wages to be awarded to the workmen for the period of the lock-out after February 28, 1964. The order of the Tribunal ignoring this important aspect is infirm and is difficult to sustain. In so far as the first question is concerned, prima facie, the order of the Tribunal does appear to be somewhat arbitrary and injudicious and it would have been more appropriate exercise of judicial discretion to adjourn the case to the following day for the production of the appellants evidence, if necessary, on payment of costs. Had we decided to remit the case back to the Tribunal for considering the question of the effect of both parties being blameworthy for the lock-out on the amount of wages to be awarded, we would have perhaps thought it proper also to direct the Tribunal to permit the appellant to adduce evidence. This evidence, we were informed, was only sought to be adduced on the question of apportionment of blame.