EMPEROR Vs. KHANDUBHAI KDESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eight petitioners were prosecuted at the instance of opponent No. 2, the Ahmedabad Cotton Manufacturing Co., Ltd., under Secs.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, 1 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.) On January 6, 1941, the authorities of the Ahmedabad Cotton Manufactaring Co. altered the working hours of the mill, which used to be 7-30 a.m. to 5-30 p.m., to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. The altered hours were to be in force from January 7 to January 18, 1941. A notice of the alteration was given on the Notice Board of the Mill. A large number of employees, 101 in all. including applicants Nos. 5 to 7 and 9, in defiance of this order of the Mill authorities, attended the mill as usual at 7-30 a.m. and left it at 5-30 p.m. on January 7. Next day, when they turned up at 7-30 a.m. for their work the Mill authorities refused to admit them. Both the parties, the Mill authorities and the applicants, approached the Industrial Court, the Mill authorities asking for a declaration that the employees had resorted to an illegal strike, and the employees asking for a declaration that the Mill authorities had made an illegal change. The Industrial Court decided on March 20, 1942, under Section 55 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, that the strike of the applicants was an illegal strike, and that the change made by the mill authorities was an illegal change. On January 20, 1943, the mill authorities prosecuted the applicants under Secs.66 and 67 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act. The trial Court convicted applicants Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 67 of the Act and applicants Nos. 5 to 7 and 9 under Secs.66 and 67 of the Act; applicant No. 1 was convicted under Secs.66 and 67 of the Act read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.