Order XLI Rule 22 CPC cannot reopen pure findings of fact or defeat compensation on speculative conciliation assumptions.

Order XLI, Rule 22 CPC permits a respondent to support a decree on grounds decided against it, but it does not allow reopening a pure finding of fact where no substantial question of law arises. In the described Supreme Court analysis, the finding that the lock-out was unjustified remained unassailable on that basis. The document also notes that compensation for the post-17 September 1952 lock-out could not be denied on the speculative assumption that conciliation participation would have led to settlement and lifting of the lock-out; that contention was rejected, and the workmen's entitlement to compensation was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a respondent who has not filed an appeal or cross-objections can support the decree on a ground decided against it in the court below under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the workmen were disentitled to compensation for the period of lock-out after 17 September 1952 because they did not participate in the conciliation proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a respondent who has not filed an appeal or cross-objections can support the decree on a ground decided against it in the court below under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The rule permits a respondent to support the decree on grounds decided against him, but it does not confer a higher right than he would have had as an appellant. The finding that the lock-out was not justified was treated as a pure finding of fact. Since the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 permitted an appeal only on a substantial question of law in the present case, that factual finding could not be reopened as if it raised such a question.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the respondent could not challenge the finding to sustain the award.

Issue (ii): Whether the workmen were disentitled to compensation for the period of lock-out after 17 September 1952 because they did not participate in the conciliation proceedings.

Analysis: The claim rested on the assumption that participation by the workmen in conciliation would necessarily have resulted in settlement and lifting of the lock-out. That assumption was treated as speculative. The point had not been pressed below, and no basis was found to deny compensation on that ground. The matter was also held unsuitable for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the workmen remained entitled to compensation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full and the award in favour of the workmen stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a respondent to support a decree on grounds decided against him, but not to reopen a pure finding of fact where no substantial question of law arises; speculative assumptions about the outcome of conciliation cannot defeat compensation for a justified lock-out.

---