Weekly rest day changes need section 9A notice; bonus scheme machinery may validly determine strike legality and lock-out status.

Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was construed broadly so that a change in the weekly rest day from Sunday to another day fell within the Fourth Schedule and required prior notice; without such notice, the change was ineffective and the existing rest arrangement continued. Paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme was upheld because the scheme-making power authorised ancillary provisions needed to implement the bonus scheme, including machinery for determining whether a strike was legal or illegal. As coal mines are a public utility service and no section 22 notice had been given, the deliberate closure of the collieries on the relevant dates amounted to an illegal lock-out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a change in the weekly rest day from Sunday to another day required notice under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and could be sustained without compliance with the Fourth Schedule; (ii) Whether paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme was invalid as excessive delegation and whether the closure of the collieries on the disputed dates amounted to an illegal lock-out.

Issue (i): Whether a change in the weekly rest day from Sunday to another day required notice under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and could be sustained without compliance with the Fourth Schedule.

Analysis: Section 9A prohibits effecting a change in conditions of service in respect of matters in the Fourth Schedule without prior notice. The expressions in the Fourth Schedule relating to hours of work, rest intervals, holidays with wages, and withdrawal of customary concession or privilege were held wide enough to include weekly rest days. The Court held that Sunday as a weekly rest day may have significance beyond monetary benefit and that the object of section 9A is to give workmen an opportunity to consider and respond to a proposed change. On that construction, altering the weekly rest day without notice rendered the change ineffective and the earlier weekly rest arrangement continued to operate.

Conclusion: The change of weekly rest day without notice under section 9A was ineffective and the workmen were not guilty of an illegal strike on the dates in question.

Issue (ii): Whether paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme was invalid as excessive delegation and whether the closure of the collieries on the disputed dates amounted to an illegal lock-out.

Analysis: The power conferred by section 5 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948, read with the Third Schedule, was held to authorise subordinate details necessary for implementing the bonus scheme, including provision for deciding whether a strike was legal or illegal for the purposes of the scheme. Paragraph 8 was therefore treated as ancillary and within delegated legislative power. Since coal mines were a public utility service and no notice under section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been given, the deliberate closure of the collieries on the relevant dates constituted an illegal lock-out under section 24.

Conclusion: Paragraph 8 of the Scheme was valid, and the closure of the collieries on the disputed dates amounted to an illegal lock-out.

Final Conclusion: The workers' absence on the disputed dates could not be treated as an illegal strike, while the employer's closure of the collieries on the relevant days was unlawful, so the challenge to the adverse findings failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A liberal construction of section 9A and the Fourth Schedule extends to a change in weekly rest days, and delegated scheme-making power may validly include ancillary machinery for deciding legality of strikes or lock-outs for implementing the scheme.

---