EMPEROR Vs. KHANDUBHAI K DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE eight petitioners were prosecuted at the instance of opponent No.2, the Ahmedabad Cotton Manufacturing Co., Ltd., under Sections 66 and 67 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938. Applicants Nos. 1 to 4 were prosecuted under Section 67 read with Section 66 for having instigated and incited others to take part in an illegal strike, and the other applicants for having gone on strike or joined a strike which had been held by the Industrial Court to be illegal. THEy were convicted by the City Magistrate, 1st Class, Ahmedabad. THEy made a revision application to the Sessions Court which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge,

(2.) APPLICANTS Nos. 5 to 7 and 9 were employees in the spinning department of the Ahmedabad Cotton Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Applicant No.1 was the Secretary of the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association and applicant No.2 one of the office-bearers of that Association. APPLICANTS Nos. 3 and 4 were the editor and printer of a magazine conducted by the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association called the Majur Sandesh.

(3.) A strike is illegal if it is commenced or continued in the circumstances mentioned in any of the eight clauses of Section 62(1) of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938. Section 55 empowers the Industrial Court to decide whether any strike or lock-out is illegal. When once a strike is declared by the Industrial Court to be illegal, Section 60 prohibits its being called in question in any civil or criminal Court. Sections 66 and 67 prescribe punishment for an employee, who has gone on strike or who joins a strike which has been held by the Industrial Court to be illegal, as well as any person who instigates or incites others to fake part in, or otherwise acts in furtherance of such a strike. This does not mean that only those who join or take part in the strike after the declaration of its illegality by the Industrial Court are liable to conviction and punishment under these sections. Such an interpretation would render the sections nugatory. Section 62(17) renders illegal not merely the continuation but also the commencement of any strike which falls within the eight clauses of that section. Sections 66 and 67 are not intended to allow illegal strikes and incitement to such strikes to be commenced and continued with impunity till the declaration of their illegality by the Industrial Court. Otherwise when a strike is declared to be illegal, it may be formally ended, and the strikers may nominally join their work for a day and go on a fresh illegal strike on the next day, if they can do so with impunity until that strike also is declared illegal by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court may take several months before giving its decision, and it cannot be said that till then an illegal strike can be continued, and that the strikers and those who instigated it can go unpunished. An illegal strike is illegal from its commencement, and does not become illegal only after it is, declared to be illegal by the Industrial Court. The decision of the Industrial Court is required for starting the prosecution, and not for rendering a strike or a lock-out illegal Section 65 which penalises an illegal lock-out is similarly worded, and it would be meaningless if it is construed in the same way as Sections 66 and 67 are sought to be interpreted. There is no doubt that Sections 65, 66 and 67 are intended to punish an illegal strike, and an illegal lock-out, and instigation to an illegal strike and an illegal lock-out, provided they are declared to be illegal by the Industrial Court, whether the illegal act is committed before or after the declaration. The applicants have been rightly convicted and the rule must be discharged.