BHARAT SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a Sugar Mill Company, made on 31-12-1956 an application under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna for the dismissal of 21 workmen for misconduct in connection with "go-slow" alleged to have been resorted to by the workmen of the factory from the midnight of February 12, to 18-2-1955. The Tribunal held that actual participation in a "go-slow" had been established only against one of the workmen at the Donga end and that the "go-slow" at the later stages in which the other 20 workmen had been engaged occurred as a necessary consequence of this go-slow by one workman at the Donga end and was not a deliberate "go-slow" by them. The Tribunal was of opinion also that the management was not acting bonafide and really was seeking to victimise active members of the union which the employer had refused to recognise. Accordingly, it refused permission in respect of 20 of the workmen and gave permission to dismiss only Nihora Dubey, a workman at the Donga. The correctness of this refusal is challenged before us in this appeal by special leave. The appellant's contention is two-fold. First, it is said that the finding of the Tribunal that these workmen in respect of whom permission to dismiss was refused were not guilty of any deliberate go-slow is perverse; secondly it is contended that the Tribunal's view that the employer was guilty of mala fide conduct and victimisation of these workmen for union activities is arbitrary and erroneous.

(2.) It does not appear to have been disputed that "go-slow" was actually resorted to in this factory from February 12, to 18-2-1955. It was indeed hardly open to the workmen to dispute this, after all the pomp and ceremony with which "go-slow" was celebrated. We find that as early as 15-1-1955, 10 demands were communicated by the union on behalf of the workmen by a letter which said that unless these demands were conceded by 26-1-1955 the workmen would resort to "go-slow" from 30-1-1955. This notice to "go-slow" appears to have been withdrawn on 22-1-1955, apparently on the advice of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Muzaffarpur. A further letter was issued the same day in which 5 demands were made with a request to concede these by the 6th February failing which it was said they would "resort to go-slow from the 19-2-1955". The Secretary of the Bharat Sugar Mills to whom the Conciliation Officer wrote, that very day, wrote back on the 22-1-1955 that they had not received any notice dated 22-1-1955. In reply to a further communication from the Assistant Labour Commissioner the appellant sent a telegram on 3-2-1955 regretting inability to attend the proposed conciliation meeting on 4-2-1955, as both the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary were away. Then on the 8th February another telegram was sent on behalf of the management informing the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the General Secretary would be returning soon and that any date after the 11th may be fixed. Thereafter, in reply to a further communication from the Assistant Commissioner inquiring as to what date would suit the management the General Secretary Shri K.C. Sarda sent another telegram requesting the Assistant Labour Commissioner to fix any date before the 17th. This telegram was sent on the 11th February. On the next date, the 12th February Sarda sent a further telegram to the Assistant Labour Commissioner stating that he would come to Muzaffarpur on the 15th afternoon. Before any action could however be taken by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the workers commenced their "go-slow" from the midnight of the 12th February.

(3.) "Go-Slow" which is a picturesque description of deliberate delaying of production by workmen pretending to be engaged in the factory is one of the most pernicious practices that discontented or disgruntled workmen some time resort to. It would not be far wrong to call this dishonest. For, while thus delaying production and thereby reducing the output the workmen claim to have remained employed and thus to be entitled to full wages. Apart from this also, "go-slow" is likely to be much more harmful than total cessation of work by strike. For, while during a strike much of the machinery can be fully turned off, during the "go-slow" the machinery is kept going on a reduced speed which is often extremely damaging to machinery parts. For all these reasons "go- slow" has always been considered a serious type of misconduct. The Standing Orders which have been made under the Standing Orders Act for the appellant factory specify "go-slow" as misconduct in sub-clause (u) of clause (1) para M under the words: "Malingering or deliberate delaying of production and carrying out of orders." It is strange therefore to see that notice of intention to commit this misconduct was solemnly given by the union in one letter after another. Some light on the mystery is however thrown by the fact that in Bihar a Committee to consider and report on the question of "go-slow" tactics in industries was appointed by the Bihar Central Standing Labour Advisory Board and the report of the Committee was submitted in 1951. The Committee made several recommendations including one that "go-slow" by workers should be treated on a par with strike. It also recommended however that workers should not resort to "go-slow" without at least 7 day's notice, that the notice would remain in force for 4 weeks but that it would not be necessary to notify the exact date of starting the "go-slow". Another recommendation was that workers should not resort to "go-slow" during the pendency of a conciliation proceeding but that the conciliation proceeding must be concluded within four weeks of the notice. The committee went to the length of recommending that "go-slow" due to malpractices by the management would be justified. By a resolution dated 1-12-1951 the Government of Bihar "were pleased to accept the recommendations of the 'go-slow' committee and expressed their 'thanks' to the members of the committee for the well considered report". No action was however taken to delete Item (u) of clause (1) of para M of the Standing Orders and so under the Standing Orders which it may be mentioned were certified on 7-11-1951 the deliberate delaying of production continued to remain a "misconduct" under the law in spite of the blessings it received from the committee and the Government of Bihar.