Case: Management of Pradip Lamp Works Vs. Pradip Lamp Workers' Karmachari Sangh &amp; Another

2. On March 20, 1964 the Governor of Bihar reffered the following disputes to the Industrial TribunalWhether the strike launched by the workers on the morning of the 27th February, 1964, was justified ?2. Whether the lock-out declared by the management is justified ?3. Whether the workmen are entitled to wages for the period of strike and/or lock-outOn the first point the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the strike by the workmen on February 27, 1964 was not justified. As a result of this conclusion the lock-out declared by the management on February 27, 1964 was held to be justified but on a consideration of the material placed before the Tribunal no justification for continuing the lock-out on the following days was shown. On this conclusion the Tribunal decided under point No. 3 that the workmen were entitled to wages for the remaining period of the lock-out.

Court's reasoning:
In this connection our attention made by the appellant to the Tribunal on September 29, 1966 seeking an opportunity for producing the witnesses named therein, but the prayer was disallowed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal disallowing the prayer was described by the learned Advocate to be discriminatory and violative of the recognised standards of judicial impartiality. Had the Sangh been compelled to start its evidence, then, so proceeded the augment, the appellants oral evidence could not be closed because the case was adjourned to the following day without concluding the recording of the evidence of the Union and on that day the remaining evidence of the management could be produced in the normal course.In our opinion, it was incumbent on the Tribunal to apply its mind to the question of apportionment of blame on the two parties and to its effect on the amount of wages to be awarded to the workmen for the period of the lock-out after February 28, 1964. The order of the Tribunal ignoring this important aspect is infirm and is difficult to sustain. In so far as the first question is concerned, prima facie, the order of the Tribunal does appear to be somewhat arbitrary and injudicious and it would have been more appropriate exercise of judicial discretion to adjourn the case to the following day for the production of the appellants evidence, if necessary, on payment of costs. Had we decided to remit the case back to the Tribunal for considering the question of the effect of both parties being blameworthy for the lock-out on the amount of wages to be awarded, we would have perhaps thought it proper also to direct the Tribunal to permit the appellant to adduce evidence. This evidence, we were informed, was only sought to be adduced on the question of apportionment of blame.