P MUKUNDAN Vs. MOHAN KANDY PAVITHRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BADAGARA area, praised in the Ballads of North, has contributed this trade union litigation.

(2.) THE plaintiff was the successful bidder of the exclusive right to vend toddy in the Badagara range for the year 1980-81. An abkari contractor of that stature has to invest considerable sums for the conduct of the business in the shops and the sub-shops. Payment to the Government (kist), wages to the workers, remittance towards workers' amenities under the Welfare Act, are some of them. The kist itself exceeded Rs. 2 lakhs. There were 20 toddy shops in the range; and more than 250 workers.

(3.) C. I. T. U. through its Secretary, the first defendant, issued a strike notice on 14th November, 1980. It contained the usual threat: concede the demands, or else face a strike of indefinite duration. The plaintiff did not yield. Tension naturally mounted. The Industrial disputes Act has an effective machinery for relieving the society of the ill-effects of such tension. That machinery has, however, to be handled efficiently and effectively. The conciliation machinery was, regrettably enough, ineffective in the present case. A conciliation attempt under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has to be made with a total involvement in the work, and with inexorable patience at its command. Such was the patience of a judge, Justice Norman Birkett, who mediated between two fiercely fighting sections in the press industry; and who won the hearts and laurels at the successful culmination of the concilation,. (See Justice Norman Birkett by H. Montgmery ). Every conciliation Officer is not a Birkett. The State has not evaluated the resultant waste of production in a meaningful manner. That is what is reflected from the materials in another labour case, S. A. No. 644 of 1990. The threatened strike was ultimately launched. It continued from 22nd November, 1980 to 9th December, 1980.