Case: Swadeshi Industries Limited Vs. Its Workmen

These 230 workmen along with other workmen were represented at that time by a Trade Union registered under the name of Swadeshi Industries Mazdoor Union struck work on April 27, 1951. On May 24, 1951, the Company terminated the services of all the workmen. On June 8, 1951, however the Company issued a general notice asking the workmen to come back on June 9, 1951. Not a single workman responded to this; but after a similar notice was issued on June 17, 1951, intimating that the factory wouldon June 18, 1951 and asking the workmen to come to their work, a large number of workmen but not including these 230 workmen joined and were employed. On July 25, 1951, the Government of West Bengal made the reference out of which this appeal has arisen stating that an industrial dispute existed between this company and their workmen represented by the Swadeshi Industries Mazdoor Union in the several matters mentioned in the Schedule. Item 6 in the Schedule of the reference was as regards "dismissal of the workers and the relief they are entitled to". It appears that the registration of the "Swadeshi Industries Mazdoor Union, Panihati, Addy Bagan,was cancelled later and thereafter on January 14, 1952, the Government directed the substitution of the words "Swadeshi Industries Sramik Union, P. O. Panihati,in place of the words, "Swadeshi Industries Mazdoor Union, Panihati, Addy Bagan,in the order making the reference. The reference in so far as it was between all their workmen excluding these 230 was disposed of by the Tribunal in accordance with the terms of a compromise which was entered into between the Company and the workmen represented by the new Union. These 230 workmen were not however represented by the Union and the reference in so far as it was between these 230 workmen and the Company was disposed of on contest. The Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "first Tribunal") held that the strike was illegal inasmuch as these workmen struck work when employed in a public utility service, that apart from that also the strike was unjustified, that the strikers were guilty of unfair labour practice and that the management had not terminated their services vindictively or capriciously. The first Tribunal was of opinion that the order of termination even though nohad been framed and no enquiry had been held was justified. Accordingly it refused to order reinstatement or to award them any compensation and also made no order on the other matters mentioned in the Schedule.2. The Appellate Tribunal held on the contrary that there was no evidence to show that the workmen had been employed in a public utility service and consequently held that the strike was not illegal. It was also of opinion on a consideration of all the circumstances of the case that the strike was justified. It was further of opinion that the termination of service of these 230 workmen without framing anyor holding any enquiry was unjustified. It held that the Management acted vindictively and capriciously in making the order of termination and not in good faith, its purpose being to break the strike and weaken the position of the Mazdoor Union. It was of opinion that these 230 workmen were entitled to reinstatement.

Court's reasoning:
5. In any case, the position in February 1951 was that since June 1949 when the case of the clerks was according to the agreement to be taken up, no settlement had been arrived at and the matter remained outstanding. In respect of the clerks therefore at least the demands for basic pay and dearness allowance etc.,was an issue in respect of which the Union should reasonably be considered to have felt the need for negotiation.6. All these mattes have been fully considered by the Appellate Tribunal and on such consideration it has arrived at the conclusion that the strike was justified. There is in our opinion not the slightest basis for thinking that this conclusion is perverse.7. The position therefore is that the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that the strike was not illegal and that it was justified remained unassailable. It was within a few days after the strike was launched that a general order terminating the services of all the workmen was made. The Appellate Tribunal thought that this order was made vindictively and mala fide, the purpose being to break the strike and weaken the position of the Mazdoor Union. Before us the Companys counsel has tried to suggest that these 230 members were guilty of violent activities. If that was the reason for which their services were sought to be terminated, it was necessary that it should be decided as a matter of fact by proper enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to each workman to show the contrary that he was so guilty of violence. But no enquiry was held, nowas framed and none of these 230 workmen had an opportunity to show that he was not guilty of any violence. Indeed the very manner in which a general order terminating the services of all workmen was made shows that the termination was intended to be the punishment not for any violent conduct or any other misconduct but for the mere fact of taking part in the strike. Besides no attempt has been made to prove by satisfactory evidence before the Tribunal the charge that any of their workmen were guilty of violence. In these circumstances the order of reinstatement made by the Appellate Tribunal is fully justified.8. The Companys Counsel drew our attention to the fact that while the order terminating the service of the workmen was made on May 24, 1951, the order of reinstatement was made in April, 1955. It is urged that in order to keep the factory going the Company had necessarily to appoint new men in place of those who had not joined though an opportunity was given to them.When however, as in this case, the order of termination itself bad reinstatement cannot ordinarily be refused merely because a long time has elapsed.It has further to be noticed that the Appellate Tribunal points out that no material was placed before it to show that new hands had been taken in by the Company. No such material was shown before us.