Case: Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Vs. Tukaram Piraji Masale

A brief resume of the facts and circumstances, which led to the application for awrit of certiorariin the High Court, becomes the necessary for a correct appreciation of the question of law involved and may, therefore, be shortly stated.2. The appellant which may hereafter, for the purpose of convenience, be called "The Mill", is a limited company owning and possessing a Cotton Textile Spinning and Weaving Mill situated in Poona, employing a large number of workmen who have a union of theirs. The first respondent is a workmen employed by the Mill and the second respondent is the Poona Girni Kamagar Union of which the first respondent is a member. Respondents 3 to 5 were formally added as parties in the first instance but their names were struck off as unnecessary at the time of the hearing.3. The appellant was running 580 looms, for working which one weaver had been allotted at the rate of two looms; and when things were in that state on August 29, 1951, the Management issued a notice to the effect that from September 9, 1951, it was desired to carry on an experiment of four looms to a weaver for a period of 2 months, on 16 looms. If at the end of that period or before the expiry of the same it was found that the working was successful, the Management would introduce the scheme after giving the notice of change required under the Act. The object of this notice was ostensibly to introduce rationalization or rather efficiency system of work, if and when the suggested experiment proved successful. As a result of this notice on September 4, 1951, the Secretary of the Union wrote to the Manager of the appellant Mill intimating that under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act the Management could not legally introduce any change in the existing system of working without first giving notice of the change in the prescribed form to the representatives of the Union and workers and without going through the other procedure prescribed by the Act; and the Management were further informed that if they insisted in carrying on the change illegally, the workmen would be free to move the proper Courts. The notice also stated that the introduction of the new system would affect the workers wages and cause great hardship; and that if anything untoward happened, the blame would be wholly on the Management, as it would be impossible for the Union to control the workers in the matter.4. Four workers volunteered to work the experiment and started working accordingly on the 16 looms on September 6, 1951; whereupon the other workmen raised an objection and the four loyal workmen were prevented from continuing with the experimental work. But the Management did not withdraw the notice that did not withdraw the notice and none, except the 4, was required by the Management to take part in the experiment. The second shift among the workmen also refused to work with the result that there was a complete strike in the Mills between September 6, and September 26, 1951.5. On September 10, 1951, the appellant filed an application under Ss. 78 and 97 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act XI of 1947) praying that the strike resorted to by the weavers working on both the shifts commencing on September 6, 1951, and continuing till the presentation of the application be declared illegal being in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. On September 16, 1951, the Vice-President of the Mill Mazdoor Sabha filed a written statement in answer to the above complaint stating that the workers did not strike work in contravention of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and that the weavers never refused to do their proper and usual work but refused only to do illegal work insisted on them by the employers; in other words they were agreeable to have two looms per weaver and not to work the attempted experiment. Within three days of the filing of the above written statement, two of the workers filed an application under Ss. 78 and 98 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act before the same Labour Court against the Management praying for a declaration that the action of the Management had resulted in an illegal lockout in contravention of the Act and, therefore, the Management should be ordered to withdraw the said illegal change. The appellant filed a written statement countering the allegations contained in the application for the declaration of an illegal lockout and stated that their action was not in contravention of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, as it did not constitute an illegal change.6. The Labour Court at Bombay heard both the applications together and by a combined order dated September 26, 1951, held that since the Management had not compelled any one to accept any work, their action could not be considered an illegal lockout. At the same time, it held that the workers did not create a situation amounting to an illegal strike. The result of these findings was the negation of the grant of the prayers contained in the respective applications but in addition the Court declared that the action of the Management was an illegal change and, therefore, the notice whereby the experiment was attempted to be tried, should be withdrawn.The workers were content with the outcome of their application but the Management having been aggrieved by the declaration that their action amounted to an illegal change filed an appeal before theLabour Appellate Tribunal at Bombay (Appeal No. 293 of 1951)upon which the learned Judges of the Labour Appellate Tribunal took the view that the strike by the workmen was illegal. They also concluded that there was no lockout on the part of the management. That being the case, the order of the Labour Court declaring that there was an illegal change was set aside with the declaration that the strike in question was illegal with the necessary consequences.In order to get the said order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal quashed, an application for awrit of certiorariunder Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed by the, two of the workers before the High Court of Bombay where Chagla C. J. and Dixit J. took the view that since the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was erroneous, the same should be quashed, with the result that the decision of the Labour Court was upheld. It is this judgment that is under appeal before us as a result of the certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay.

Court's reasoning:
16. In our opinion it is unnecessary to decide in this case whether the first argument of learned counsel for the appellant is correct or not; because we are clearly of the opinion that the second argument with regard to the construction of cl.(c) of sub-s. (1) of S.97 is correct and should prevail. In this case the workman themselves came to Court with the plea that the action of the employer amounted to an illegalis obvious therefore, that the workmen in this case struck work only for the reason that the change or experiment made by the appellant employer as an illegal change. The action of the workmen, therefore, came within the express terms of cl.(c) of sub-s. (1) of S.97 of the Act. The learned Chief Justice did not consider this aspect of the case, and reached a conclusion with regard to the legality of the strike on a reasoning which did not give full effect to the words used in cl.(c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 97. In our view, the true test was to find out the reason for which the strike was commenced or continued, and it was unnecessary to consider or decide whether there was a common law right of the workmen to go on strike or whether the workmen had the right to go on strike as a means of collective bargaining against a change which they did not like.Even assuming that Mr. Gokhale is right in his contention it is clear to us that if the workman commence or continue a strike for the only reason that the employer has made an illegal change, they come within the express terms of cl. (c) of sub-s (l) of S.97. It is immaterial whether the change is subsequently found by the Labour Court to be a legal change. It is worthy of note that there is a seperate provision for imposing a penalty on an employer who makes an illegal change. The relevant consideration, however, with regard to cl.(c) of sub-s (l) of S.97 is the reason for which the strike is commenced or continued. That reason in this particular case is clear enough. The workmen themselves said that they commenced and continued the strike because the employer had made an illegal change. That being the position, the strike was illegal within the express terms of cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 97 of the Act.18. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, on a proper interpretation of cl.(c) of sub-s (l) of S. 97 of the Act, the strike which was commenced and continued from September 6 to September 26, 1951, was clearly illegal.