Case: M/S. North Brook Jute Co. Ltd.And Another Vs. Their Workmen

"endeavour" could be held to extend to decide the question on which differences have arisen or are likely one way or the other. It was rightly pointed out by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Kemp and Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1955-1 Lab LJ 48, that :"the Works Committee are normally concerned with problems arising in the day to day working of the concern and the functions of the Works Committee are to ascertain the grievances of the employees and when occasion arises to arrive at some agreement also. But the function and the responsibility of the works committee as their very nomenclature indicates cannot go beyond recommendation and as such they are more or less bodies who in the first instance endeavour to compose the differences and the final decision rests with the union as a whole."5. The fact that the workmens representatives on the Works Committee agreed to the introduction of the rationalisation scheme is therefore in no way binding on the workmen or their Union.6. The next argument was that whatever alteration was effected in the conditions of service, was made, on the date when notice under S. 9A was given and that being before the 13th December there was no contravention of S. 33. There is in our opinion no substance in this contention. Section 9A in accordance with which the notice was given provides that"No employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workmen in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or(b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice;".With the proviso to the section we are not concerned. What is important to notice is that in making this provision for notice the Legislature was clearly contemplating three stages. The first stage is the proposal by the employer to effect a change; the next stage is when he gives a notice and the last stage is when he effects the change in the conditions of service on the expiry of 21 days from the date of the notice. The conditions of service do not stand changed, either when the proposal is made or the notice is given but only when the change is actually effected.That actual change takes place when the new conditions of service are actually introduced.7. It necessarily follows that in deciding for the purpose of S. 33 of the Act, at what point of time the employer "alters" any conditions of service, we have to ascertain the time when the change of which notice under S. 9A is given is actually effected. If at the time the change is effected, a proceeding is pending before a Tribunal, S. 33 of time when the employer proposes to change the conditions of service and the point of time when the notice is given are equally irrelevant.8. It was further contended that in any case, the alteration was not to the prejudice of the workmen. How such a contention can be seriously made is difficult to understand. The whole basis of the scheme was so to allocate the machines to workmen, as to enable fewer workmen to work the machines than the number previously required so that surplus workmen could be discharged. The object was to decrease the cost of production. The method adopted for attaining the object was to obtain more work from the workmen for approximately the same wages. However laudable the object be, it cannot be doubted for a moment that the scheme prejudiced the workmen seriously. Mr. Fraser, the companys witness stated in his evidence that while previously for every machine in the batching department, there were two hands, now there are two hands for two machines. In giving the reasons for the introduction of the scheme, he said"we had surplus labour in both the mills. The company was losing heavily. Till then we depended on natural wastage and did not think of rationalisation; in November last year, the decision was taken to take action on rationalisation."9. Rationalisation which was introduced had therefore two effects - first that some workers would become surplus and would face discharge; and secondly, the other workmen would have to carry more workload. The introduction of the rationalisation scheme was therefore clearly an alteration of conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen.10. The alteration was made on the 16th December, when reference as regards the scheme had already been made and was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal has therefore rightly held that this introduction was a contravention of S. 33.11. Lastly it was contended that even if the introduction of the rationalisation scheme was a contravention of S. 33 the workmens remedy lay in applying under S. 33A, and that they were not entitled to strike work.Section 33A no doubt gives the workmen aggrieved by the contravention by the employer of S. 33 the right to apply to the Tribunal for relief ; but the existence of this remedy does not mean that the workmen were bound to work under the altered conditions of service, even though these were in clear contravention of law. When they refused to do the additional work which the rationalisation scheme required them to do, they refused to do work, which the employer had no right in law to ask them to do. It is difficult to say that this amounted to a "strike" by the workmen; but even if it could be said to be a "strike" such strike was certainly not illegal or unjustified.12. Our conclusion therefore is that the Tribunal was right in its opinion that the closure of the mills by the employer amounted to an illegal lock-out, and the workmen, unable to work in consequence of the lock-out, are entitled to wages for the period of absence, caused by such lock-out.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]9. Rationalisation which was introduced had therefore two effects - first that some workers would become surplus and would face discharge; and secondly, the other workmen would have to carry more workload. The introduction of the rationalisation scheme was therefore clearly an alteration of conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen.10. The alteration was made on the 16th December, when reference as regards the scheme had already been made and was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal has therefore rightly held that this introduction was a contravention of S. 33.11. Lastly it was contended that even if the introduction of the rationalisation scheme was a contravention of S. 33 the workmens remedy lay in applying under S. 33A, and that they were not entitled to strike work.Section 33A no doubt gives the workmen aggrieved by the contravention by the employer of S. 33 the right to apply to the Tribunal for relief ; but the existence of this remedy does not mean that the workmen were bound to work under the altered conditions of service, even though these were in clear contravention of law. When they refused to do the additional work which the rationalisation scheme required them to do, they refused to do work, which the employer had no right in law to ask them to do. It is difficult to say that this amounted to a "strike" by the workmen; but even if it could be said to be a "strike" such strike was certainly not illegal or unjustified.12. Our conclusion therefore is that the Tribunal was right in its opinion that the closure of the mills by the employer amounted to an illegal lock-out, and the workmen, unable to work in consequence of the lock-out, are entitled to wages for the period of absence, caused by such lock-out.