Industrial award upheld on staff benefits and half wages, with limited interference under Article 136.

The Supreme Court upheld an industrial tribunal award granting tiffin allowance to staff canteen employees and warm coats to selected subordinate staff, finding no reasonable basis to deny those benefits and no exceptional ground for interference under Article 136. It also sustained the direction to pay half wages for the strike and lock-out period, holding that although the strike could be illegal during pending proceedings and the lock-out initially justified, the parties' subsequent conduct had to be assessed as a whole. The Court accepted the tribunal's equitable apportionment of blame and relief in aid of industrial peace, and declined to disturb the award.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the award directing payment of tiffin allowance to the staff canteen employees and supply of warm coats to the subordinate staff called for interference in appeal; (ii) Whether the award directing payment of half wages for the strike and lock-out period was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the award directing payment of tiffin allowance to the staff canteen employees and supply of warm coats to the subordinate staff called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The dispute relating to these items was examined on the footing that there was no reasonable basis for denying tiffin allowance to the staff canteen employees while granting it to the officers' canteen staff, and no climatic distinction justified excluding certain subordinate staff from the benefit of warm coats. The Court also noted that the Tribunal's directions were within the wider reference and involved no exceptional or grave injustice warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The award on tiffin allowance and warm coats was upheld and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the award directing payment of half wages for the strike and lock-out period was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that where industrial action occurs during pending proceedings, the strike may be illegal under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the ensuing lock-out may initially be justified under Section 24(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the later conduct of the parties must still be assessed as a whole. On the facts, the workers had indicated readiness for peaceful resumption, the management had persisted with closure, and the Tribunal was entitled to apportion blame and grant a pragmatic, equitable relief consistent with industrial peace. The Court further applied the principle of self-imposed restraint in interference with industrial awards under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The direction to pay half wages for the relevant period was valid and was not liable to be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full and the Tribunal's award was maintained.

---