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

2. Almost a month before this the proposal of introducing a rationalisation scheme in the mills of these companies had been considered at an extraordinary meeting of the Works Committee and the Committee had agreed to the proposal. A notice under S. 9 the Industrial Disputes Act was then given by the companies to the Unions of their workmen and it was because the workmen objected to the introduction of the rationalisation scheme that the dispute arose and was referred by the Government to the Tribunal. On December 16 when the above reference was pending before the Tribunal the management of these mills put the rationalisation scheme into operation but the workmen refused to do the additional work placed on them by the scheme. Later the same day the mills declared a lock-out. Work was however resumed again in all departments excepting the weaving and finishing departments on December 20, and in these two departments on December 21, as a result of a settlement arrived at between the workmen represented by their Unions and the Mills as regards the introduction of the rationalisation scheme. But a dispute arose as regards the payment of wages to workmen for their dues during the period when the mills were closed, viz., 16th December to 20th December in the weaving and finishing departments and 16th December to 19th December in all other departments. This dispute was also referred to the Tribunal by an order of the Government dated February 1,The earlier issue as regards the proposed introduction of the rationalisation scheme was also amended in view of what had happened in the meantime by substituting thereforthe rationalisation effected in the above two mills since 16th December, 1957, involved any increase in the workload? To what relief the workers are entitledare no longer concerned with this issue as the decision of the Tribunal thereon which is against the workmen is no longer disputed. As regards the other two disputes the Tribunal has made an award in favour of the workmen that they are entitled to wages for the period of absence above-mentioned.3. On this question the workmens case before the Tribunal was that the reason that workmen could not do any work on the days in question was the illegal lock-out by the employers; the employers case was that the workmen had struck work illegally, and so, the closure of the mills on the 16th of December after such strike was not illegal or unjustified. The Tribunal was of opinion that the employers attempt to put the rationalisation scheme into effect on the 16th December was a contravention of S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and so, the workmens refusal to work in accordance with that scheme was not an illegal strike and the employers closure of the mills was illegal.

Court's reasoning:
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.