Illegal strike and defective inquiry shape industrial disciplinary relief, with reinstatement and back wages adjusted by employee conduct.
An illegal strike during pending conciliation proceedings was treated as unjustified under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while the lock-out was not rendered illegal merely because it continued after the strike ended. The disciplinary relief depended on individual conduct: dismissal of six workmen was found unsustainable and reinstatement was confirmed, but the dismissal of two workmen was upheld on the basis of a proper domestic inquiry and absence of victimisation. The 37 workmen convicted under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code were denied reinstatement, and for the remaining workmen the defective inquiry and participation in an illegal strike justified only reduced back wages rather than full relief.
Issues: (i) Whether the dismissal of the eight workmen was justified and what relief they were entitled to; (ii) Whether the strike was illegal, whether the lock-out was illegal, and whether the dismissal or suspension of the 260 workmen, including the 37 convicted under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, could be sustained, along with the proper relief.
Issue (i): Whether the dismissal of the eight workmen was justified and what relief they were entitled to.
Analysis: The Tribunal had examined the individual cases of the eight workmen separately. In the cases of four workmen, the material did not establish the alleged assault with sufficient certainty. In the case of two workmen, the Tribunal found the dismissal to be an act of victimisation and mala fide. In the remaining two cases, the charges had been supplied with particulars and the domestic inquiry was held to be proper, with no finding of mala fides or victimisation.
Conclusion: The dismissal of six workmen was upheld as bad and the order of reinstatement was confirmed, but the dismissal of Jahangir Sardar and Keayamat Hussain was held justified and the order of reinstatement in their favour was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the strike was illegal, whether the lock-out was illegal, and whether the dismissal or suspension of the 260 workmen, including the 37 convicted under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, could be sustained, along with the proper relief.
Analysis: The strike took place while conciliation proceedings were pending and was therefore illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An illegal strike could not be treated as a justified strike in law. The lock-out was not illegal merely because it continued after the strike ceased. For punitive action against strikers, the Court distinguished between peaceful participants and those who had also indulged in violence or disobedience of lawful orders. The departmental inquiry against the bulk of the workmen was held defective because individual charge-sheets had not been shown to have been served. The 37 workmen convicted under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code stood on a different footing because they had violated a prohibitory order and were not entitled to reinstatement. For the remaining workmen, the defect in the inquiry and their participation in an illegal strike required a modified relief rather than full reinstatement with full back wages.
Conclusion: The finding of illegality of the strike was sustained, the lock-out was not held illegal, the reinstatement of the 37 convicted workmen was set aside, and the award of full back wages for the remaining reinstated workmen was reduced by half for the relevant period.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with relief granted to the employer against the reinstatement of the two workmen named above and the 37 convicted workmen, and with a corresponding reduction in back wages for the remaining reinstated workmen.
Ratio Decidendi: In industrial disciplinary matters, an illegal strike does not become legally justified, punishment must be graded according to the employee's conduct, and reinstatement with full back wages is not warranted where the inquiry is defective and the workmen have participated in conduct involving breach of law and order.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
