Case: M/S. Tata Iron &amp; Steel Co. Ltd Vs. The Workmen &amp; Ors

2. The appellant owns six collieries, but we are concerned in the present controversy only with two collieries, namely, Sijua and Bhelatand. Du to shortage of power, the appellant decided to stagger the weekly rest days in all the collieries. By a notice dated September 10, 1963 a new schedule of rest days was introduced in accordance with which Sijua colliery was to have every Wednesday as a rest day and Bhelatand colliery every Friday as a rest day. With respect to Bhelatand colliery Friday was later changed to Thursday. It is common ground that previously Sunday was the weekly rest day in all the six collieries. The change in the weekly days of rest was to take effect from September 15, 1963 which was a Sunday. The workers of the collieries did not turn up for work on Sunday September 15, as a result whereof, negotiations were held between the appellant and some of the workmen represented by the Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and it was agreed that the new schedule would taken effect from September 22, 1963. It may here be pointed out that the respondents in these appeals, who were also respondents in the High Court in the six writ petitions, are members of another union called the Congress Mazdoor Sangh which was not a party to that agreement. The said agreement was not given full effect, with the result that on September 22, 1963, again, the workers did not turn up for work in the collieries. The appellant thereupon filed two applications under sub-para (1) of para 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) before the Regional Labour Commissioner for a declaration that there was an illegal strike on September 22, 1963. Even after September 22, 1963, the controversy between the appellant and the workmen continued and on Wednesday, September 25, 1963 the workmen went to Sijua Colliery for work. The appellant refused to give them any work on the plea that Wednesday was a weekly day of rest in that colliery. Similarly, when the workmen went on Thursday. September 26, 1963 to Bhelatand Colliery they were told that Thursday was a weekly rest day and on this ground they were not given and work. Shri B. N. Sharma, President of the Congress Mazdoor Sangh, Bihar, Jorapokhar, Dhanbad, on behalf of the workmen of Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries, filed two applications before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, stating that there was illegal lock-out of the workers of Sijua Collierty on September 25, 1963 and of the workers of Bhelatand Colliery on September 26, 1963, and that the said lock-outs should be declared illegal for the purposes of the scheme.      3. The Regional Labour Commissioner decided the two applications filed by Shri B. N. Sharma in respect of the alleged lock-out of workers of Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries by an order dated November 22, 1963 and held that the non-working of Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries on September 25 and 26, 1963 respectively was due to a lock-out, which was illegal for purposes of the Scheme. It may be pointed out that the appellant had also filed four more applications relating to the failure of the workmen to work on September 15 and 29 in the two collieries which means that there were six applications before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad filed by the appellant seeking declaration that the workers of Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries had resorted to strike on September 15, 22 and 29, 1963 which should be declared as illegal for purposes of the Scheme. The applications relating to the strike on September 15, 1963 both at Sijua and Bhelatand Collieries being declared as illegal were later withdrawn in view of the agreement dated September 18, 1963, with the result that only four applications by the appellant were ultimately adjudicated upon by the Regional Labour Commissioner who, by an order dated November 14, 1964, gave a declaration that there was no strike, much less an illegal strike, by the workers on September 22 and 29, 1963. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the finding that change in the weekly days of rest was not in accordance with law.      4. The appellant appealed to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in all the six matters, but without success. Aggrieved by these decisions, the appellant approached the Patna High Court by means of six writ petitions which were disposed of by two separate orders both dated November 16, 1966. In one judgment, the High Court dealt with the four writ petitions complaining of illegal strike and in the other with the two writ petitions complaining of illegal lock-out. The High Court upheld the decision of the Regional Labour Commissioner as also of the Central Industrial Tribunal on appeal, and dismissed all the six writ petitions. It is in these circumstances that the present six appeals have been presented to this Court by the appellant - Messrs Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited.

Court's reasoning:
12. We now come to the main contention. Section 9-A which has already been reproduced, lays down that change in the conditions of service in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shall not have effect unless a notice is given to the workmen likely to be affected by such change. The relevant entries of the Fourth Schedule have already been reproduced. It appears to us that entries dealing with "hours of work and rest intervals" and "leave with wages and holidays" are wide enough to cover the case of illegal strikes and rest days. Indeed, entry no. 8 dealing with "withdrawal of customary concession or privilege or change in usage" is also wide enough to take within its fold the change of weekly holidays from Sunday to some other day of the week, because it seems to us to be a plausible argument to urge that fixation of Sundays as weekly rest days is founded on usage and/or is treated as a customary privilege and any change in such weekly holidays would fall within the expressions "change in usage" or "customary privilege"13. We are not unmindful of the force of the argument pressed on behalf of the appellant that if a holiday is changed from Sunday to some other week day it would not affect the material gain or financial benefit available to the workmen because the workmen would nonetheless get one day off with pay in a week.Whether the paid day of rest is a Sunday or some other week day would not doubt cause no financial loss to the workmen.But the financial benefit cannot be the sole criterion in considering this question. In this connection it must not be ignored that due to long usage and other factors Sunday as a holiday may for conceivable reasons have assumed importance for workmen. For certain classes of workmen Sunday as a weekly rest day may also have special significance. Workmen may, for example, also generally like to have weekly rest day on a Sunday when their School going children have a holiday so that the entire family may be able to take part in recreational or other social activities. This consideration has its own importance. If that be so, then, notice for effecting such a change would be within the contemplation of Section 9-A. Further the real object and purpose of enacting Section 9-A seems to be to afford an opportunity to the workmen to consider the effect of the proposed change and if necessary to present their point of view on the proposal. Such consultation further serves to stimulate a feeling of common joint interest of the management and workmen in the industrial progress and increased productivity. This approach on the part of the industrial employer would reflect his harmonious and sympathetic co-operation in improving the status and dignity of the Industrial employee in accordance with the egalitarian and progressive trend of our Industrial jurisprudence, which strives to treat the capital and labour as co-sharers and to break away from the tradition of labours subservience to capital15. In our opinion, in order to effectively achieve the object underlying Section 9-A, it would be more appropriate to place on the Fourth Schedule and with Section 9-A a construction liberal enough to include change of weekly rest days from Sunday to some other week day. The appellant having thus effected a change in the weekly days of rest without complying with S. 9-A read with the Fourth Schedule this change must be held to be ineffective and the previous schedule of weekly days of rest must be held to be still operative. Reference was made at the bar to certain decisions but they are of little assistance in construing the statutory provisions with which we are concerned and which, as already observed, have to be construed on their own language and scheme. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to refer to those decisions16. The result then is that the appellants contention that the workmen concerned had resorted to illegal strike on September 22 and 29, 1963 must be rejected. On this view the respondents contention that the appellant had illegally declined to give work to the respondents on September 25 and 26, 1963 and that the appellant had declared lock-out on those two days which was illegal has also to be upheld. No doubts, mere refusal to give work does not by itself amount to lock-out but in the present case it cannot be disputed that when the employers closed the Sijua and Bhelatand collieries respectively on September 25 and 26, 1963 they knew that this change in the weekly days of rest was not acceptable to a considerable section of the workmen who had not come to work on Sunday, September 22, 1963.The closure of the place of work in the two aforesaid collieries on the two days in question was thus deliberate. Coal having been declared public utility service, as observed by the Regional Labour Commissioner in his order notice as contemplated by Section 22 of the Act was necessary. Such a notice having not been given, the lock-out was clearly illegal under section 24 of the Act. The High Court was in our opinion right in the orders made by it in the Writ Petitions.