Case: Management Of Itakhoolie Tea Estate  Vs.  Its Workmen

2. The facts lie in a small compass. The Government of Assam by a Gazette notification dated October 13, 1952, referred the dispute between the said parties under S. 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) to the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Assam, for adjudication on the following issues :"(1) Whether the management of Itakhoolie Tea Estate was justified in declaring alockoutin the garden from 13th September to 25th September, 1952(2) If not, are the workmen involved entitled to wages for the above period."The said dispute between the management and the workmen of the Tea Estate arose under the following circumstances. On September 5, 1952, at 12 noon, the labourers wanted leave on the ground that it was raining, but the manager of the Estate refused to give the leave and directed them to pluck leaves in the afternoon also. The labourers did not do any work in the afternoon on that day. On September 11, 1952,s left plucking at0 p.m. without permission, although the schedule time for stopping work was approximately0 p. m. Those who left early were weighed in after all the other labourers had been weighed in and they were also each fined two annas and were also directed not to pluck but to weed on the next day. On the next day i.e., on September 12, 1952, the other men also left plucking and joined the weeders and later on in the day all went on plucking. Aty on the same day thes were weighed in, but thes refused to be weighed in unless those who were ordered to weed were also weighed in. The Manager did not agree to this course. The same trouble occurred in the evening also. In the afternoon of September 12, 1952, the then Zonal Secretary, Mr. Allen, and the Government Labour Officer, Dibrugarh, arrived at the garden at 3 p.m. and they were apprised of the intention of the Manager to close down the garden from September 13, 1952, for garden labour and from September 14, 1952, for factory labourers. At the intervention of the said officers, the Manager agreed not to close down the garden without any further instance of insubordination on the part of the labourers. On the morning of September 13, 1952, upto 9 Oclock only 402 out of the 1542 labourers had turned up for work. The practice in the garden was that the labourers who turned up late were allowed to work but they had to make up for their late arrival in the evening by working after the schedule time for stoppage of work. The Manager declared alockoutof all labour of the garden at 9 a.m. on September 13, 1952, and thelockoutcontinued till September 25, 1952, and the garden was opened on the morning of September 26, 1952. On the aforesaid facts the question arises whether thelockoutwas justified. On issue (1) the Tribunal held on the material placed before it that the action of the Manager in declaring alockoutat 9 a.m. was hasty, that it was not just or equitable to punish all the labourers for the acts of indiscipline committed by a few of them and that, therefore, thelockoutwas not justified. On issue (2) it found that there was no material showing that the workers reported for work but were refused work on any of the working days from September 14 to September 27, 1952. But as 402 workmen reported for work on September 13, 1952, it directed their wages for that day to be paid to them. In regard to thes who were weighed in on September 11 and 12, 1952, and also thes whose leaves were weighed in on September 11, 1952, they were directed to be paid off their dues. Against the said award the workmen filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal of India in so far as the award was against them, but the management did not prefer any appeal. The Appellate Tribunal held that, as thelockoutwas not justified, the entire body of workmen were entitled to compensation for the period of. The learned counsel for the management sought to sustain the award of the Tribunal on the ground that thelockoutwas justified. The Appellate Tribunal negatived the contention for the reason that "it is not open to thet to challenge a finding where on the challenged finding disappearing, the relief given against it would be affected" In the result the appeal filed by the workmen was allowed. The management preferred the present appeal questioning the correctness of the said order of the Appellate Tribunal.

Court's reasoning:
A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that it has considered the entire material placed before it and come to the conclusion that thelockoutwas not justified. The finding is purely one of fact. The learnedl attempted to argue that the said finding was wrong. We cannot see how the said finding gives rise to any question of law, much less to a substantial question of law. If so, the appellant could not before the said Appellate Tribunal attack the said finding to sustain the award passed by the Tribunal. We, therefore, reject the first contention of the appellant6. To appreciate the second contention some relevant facts may be stated here. The Government Labour Officer, having been apprised of the situation in the garden, made an attempt for conciliation. On September 15, 1952, the employers representative wanted one days time in order to enable the employer to participate in the conciliation proceedings, for his representative was to come from the head office at Calcutta. The said representative came on September 17,1952, and attended the conciliation proceedings but the workmens representative declined to appear at the conciliation proceedings held on that date on the ground that there was no dispute which required settlement. On the said facts it was contended before the Appellate Tribunal that at any rate the workmen were not entitled to any compensation for the period oflockoutafter September 17, 1952.The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention on the ground that the argument was based upon an assumption that in case the workmens representative had taken part in the conciliation proceedings, the matter would have been settled and thelockoutwould have been lifted, and that the said assumption was only a surmise. The same argument has been repeated before us by the learned. This point was not pressed before the Tribunal. That apart, we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. Further, the question raised is not such as can be permitted to be raised under Art. 136 of the Constitution.