LAKSHMIRATAN COTTON MILLS CO LIMITED Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a limited liability company carrying on business of running a cotton textile mill in Kanpur. The workmen employed by the appellant are affiliated to two unions, some to Lakshmi Rattan Mazdoor Panchayat and others to Lakshmi Rattan Shramik Union. We are concerned in this appeal with Lakshmi Rattan Mazdoor Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the Mazdoor Panchayat as that is the union which has the majority membership of the workmen

(2.) It appears that there were disputes between the appellant and its workmen in regard to various industrial matters and these disputes were settled by an agreement dated 25th November, 1971 made between the appellant and the Mazdoor Panchayat and registered under S. 6-B of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act). Clause (2) of the Agreement provided that "the Union will not give any notice for strike for one year from today's date". There were other clauses in the Agreement which imposed. obligations on the appellant, but in the view we are taking, it is not necessary to spend any time in referring to them. Suffice it to state that the dispute between the parties in regard to bonus for the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 was left to the decision of Mohd. Ahsan. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur. But then dispute again arose between the parties as regards payment of bonus for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 and this dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under S. 6 (3) of the U. P. Act by an order dated 8-6-1971. The Reference was numbered Adjudication Case No. 82 of 1971. On or about 29th June,1972, it seems, there were negotiations between the parties at the intervention of the Labour Minister and a formula was evolved for payment of bonus for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. In view of this arrangement, the Mazdoor Panchayat made an application to the Industrial Tribunal on 25th July, 1972 stating that the Union did not want to proceed with the dispute because the matter had been discussed between the parties in the presence of the State Minister on 29th June, 1972 and during these discussions the State Minister had advised the management to pay four per cent bonus to the workmen for each of the three years. Since the workmen were not prepared to pursue the Reference, the Industrial Tribunal made an award dated 14th August, 1972 holding that the workmen were not entitled to any bonus for the years in question. Though the award was signed on 14th August, 1972, it was not published in the Gazette until 7th October, 1972.

(3.) Even so, the Mazdoor Panchayat gave a notice dated 18th August, 1972 stating that the workmen would go on strike from 11th September, 1972 unless their demands were satisfied. The appellant repeatedly explained to the President and the Secretary of the Mazdoor Panchayat that the contemplated strike would be illegal and advised them to refrain from it but that had no effect and as threatened in the notice, the workmen commenced the strike on 11th September, 1972. The modus operandi followed by the workmen was that they came to the mill and entered the working shed every day during their shift hours, but did not do any work and instead, held meetings and demonstrations, shouted slogans and threatened the supervisory and management staff. The strike was, according to the appellant, illegal for two reasons, One was that the strike was commenced during the pendency of adjudication Case No. 82 of 1971 before the Industrial Tribunal and the other was that the strike was in breach of cl. (2) of the Agreement dated 25th November, 1971 which was still in operation. All the workmen participated in the illegal strike, but out of them, there were fifty-three who, according to the appellant, led and incited the illegal strike and some out of these fifty-three, held meetings inside the mill premises without the previous written permission of the appellant and also shouted slogans and made demonstrations inside the mill premises. These acts amounted to misconduct within the meaning of cls. (ii), (xv) and (xx) of Standing Order 25 (1) (A).