S P NANAVATY Vs. R K MLSHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Manager of Satna Cement Works, Satna. In the said Cement Works the employees resorted to strike on 20-12-1964 at 2 p. m. and the same lasted upto 10 a. m. the next day. On 15-2-1965 a complaint was presented before the Labour Court under section 89 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, against respondents Nos. 1 to 4. A preliminary objection was raised before the Labour Court on 25-3-1965 to the effect that before a declaration was obtained that the strike was illegal, the complaint under section 89 of the Act against the respondents for their having instigated the strike could not be filed and, as such, the complaint was not tenable. THE Labour Court overruled the objection and held that no pre-declaration was necessary and the Labour Court could make an enquiry as to whether the strike was illegal or not in the present proceedings. On this reasoning, the objection was rejected on 14-10-1965. THE respondents Nos. 1 to 4 thereupon moved the Industrial Court. That Court by its order dated 28-7-1966, upheld the objection. THE present petition challenges the said order of the Industrial Court.

(2.) THE reasoning adopted by the Industrial Court, in brief, is that under section 82 of the Industrial Relations Act alone a strike can be declared illegal and unless the strike is declared illegal under that section, no penalty can be imposed either on the employee or the instigator. It was held that the language of sections 88 and 89 clearly indicated that the declaration of strike as illegal under section 82 was a condition precedent for filing a complaint under sections 88 and 89; and inasmuch as there was no such declaration, the complaint was not tenable.

(3.) SHRI Gulab Gupta, who appeared for respondents Nos. 1 to 4, urged that under the scheme of the Act the declaration given by the Labour Court was binding on all the persons irrespective of the fact that they were parties to the proceedings or not. In other words, he urged that the said declaration operated as a decision in rem. We are not prepared to accept this contention. No decision can be made to operate in rem unless a specific provision to that effect is made by the statute. There is nothing in the Industrial Relations Act to say that this is the effect of any decision of the Labour Court. We find that in section 77 provision has been made making the order of the Labour Court, the Industrial Court or a Board binding on certain specified persons. The third parties to the disputes are not made bound by any decision of the said Courts under section 77 of the Act.