Pending tribunal proceedings bar strikes by workmen in the concerned establishment, and later abatement does not erase criminal liability.

Workmen employed in the concerned industrial establishment are prohibited from striking while proceedings before a Tribunal are pending and for the statutory period thereafter, even if the strike concerns a different dispute. Section 23(b) was read as an absolute bar for the establishment involved, and the narrower distinction in Section 23(c) was treated as deliberate. Abatement of the industrial reference under the 1949 Ordinance did not affect criminal liability, because the material question was whether the proceedings were pending when the strike occurred. The conviction under the penal provision was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a strike by workmen employed in an industrial establishment is illegal under Section 23(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 merely because proceedings before a Tribunal are pending, even if the strike relates to a different dispute. (ii) Whether the abatement of the industrial dispute proceedings under the 1949 Ordinance affected the criminal conviction for the strike committed while those proceedings were pending.

Issue (i): Whether a strike by workmen employed in an industrial establishment is illegal under Section 23(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 merely because proceedings before a Tribunal are pending, even if the strike relates to a different dispute.

Analysis: The prohibition in Section 23(b) was read as an absolute restraint on workmen employed in the relevant industrial establishment from striking during the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal and for the statutory period thereafter. The distinction drawn in Section 23(c) between matters covered by an award or settlement and other matters was treated as deliberate, while no such limitation was read into Section 23(b). The expression referring to workmen employed in an industrial establishment was understood to confine the prohibition to the establishment or branch involved in the pending proceedings, but not to confine it to the exact subject-matter of the dispute alone.

Conclusion: The strike was illegal under Section 23(b), and the conviction under Section 26 was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the abatement of the industrial dispute proceedings under the 1949 Ordinance affected the criminal conviction for the strike committed while those proceedings were pending.

Analysis: The Ordinance was held to have dealt with the adjudicatory reference and pending settlement proceedings, not with criminal prosecutions for offences created by the Act. The fact that the industrial reference later abated or did not culminate in an award was held immaterial, because the relevant question was whether proceedings were pending when the strike occurred.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were not affected by the abatement of the industrial dispute reference.

Final Conclusion: The revision was held to fail, and the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: During the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, workmen employed in the concerned industrial establishment are absolutely prohibited from striking, and the legality of the strike does not depend on whether it relates to the same dispute or whether the reference later abates.

---