EMPEROR Vs. KASHINATH DAYARAM CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant who is a communist and the secretary of the Railway Men's Union at Manmad, District Nasik, was tried by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Manmad, for instigating a strike among the labourers in the Reserve Supply Base Depot at Manmad and thereby abetting the doing of a prejudicial act. He was convicted under Rule 38(5) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. His appeal to the Sessions Judge at Nasik having been dismissed, he has made this application for revision to have his conviction and sentence set aside. Five of the workmen who went on strike were also tried along with him. THEy were convicted under Rule 38(5) of the Defence of India Rules and were given the benefit of Section 562(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. THEy did not appeal against their conviction.

(2.) THE Reserve Supply Base Depot is a military depot where commodities required for military purposes are stored and from where they are transported to places where they are required by military authorities. A large number of labourers are employed in the depot for arranging, loading and unloading the commodities stored there, and a strike among them resulting in the cessation of work is bound to impede and delay the handling of transport and distribution of essential commodities. Such a strike is undoubtedly a prejudicial act as denned in Rule 34(h) of the Defence of India Rules.

(3.) THE labourers employed in the Depot were demanding higher wages and a cheap grain shop. THEir wages were raised once in February, 19142, and again in September, 1942, but they were not satisfied. In March, 1943, they made a representation to the local authorities in the Depot that the rise given to them was not enough and that their wages should be further increased. It appears that their request was referred to higher authorities in Delhi. Before any reply was received from Delhi, the labourers made a written request on April 8, 1943, that their wages should be increased. It is in evidence that on May 11, 1943, a reply was received from Delhi partially granting their request and raising their wages to some extent. THE labourers being not satisfied with that much rise in their wages, the applicant advised them to go on strike. Accordingly on the next day, May 12, 1943, about 1,000 out of 1,200 employees went on strike. This act was undoubtedly a prejudicial act and the question is whether it was done without lawful authority or excuse.