Syndicate Bank vs Umesh Naik

7/25/2019 Syndicate Bank vs Umesh Naik

1/15

Syndicate Bank Vs Umesh Naik (1994) 5 SCC 572

Mobile VieMain Sea!ch"o!#ms$d%anced Sea!ch&isclaime!

Cites 1' docs Vie $ll*

Section 2+(a) in ,he -nd#st!ial &is.#tes $ct/ 1947

Section 22 in ,he -nd#st!ial &is.#tes $ct/ 1947Section 22(1)(d) in ,he -nd#st!ial &is.#tes $ct/ 1947

Section 24(1)(i) in ,he -nd#st!ial &is.#tes $ct/ 1947

$ll -ndia Bank 0ice!s 333 %s Union 0 -ndia 0!s on 14 $##st/ 1969Citedby 46 docs Vie $ll*

Bha!atiya ama! a!macha!i 333 %s 8333 :td3 $nd 0!s3 on 16 Ma!ch/ 1996

Usha ; 3Shanm#am = on +' $##st/ 2''?Manaement 0 @ind#stan Cables 333 %s :abo#! Co#!t/ @yde!abad $nd $n!3 on 1+

No%embe!/ 1995

,he $ssistant 8ene!al Manae!/ 333 %s $!3 Shanm#am $nd 0the!s on 14 $##st/ 199783 Nanchil #ma!an %s 8o%indasamy 3B3

>E,-,-0NE


2/15

Vs3

0N&EN,=

3UMES@ N$G$

&$,E 0" HU&8MEN,19I'+I1994

BENC@=

S$$N,/ >3B3

BENC@=

S$$N,/ >3B3

U:&-> S-N8@ (H)

M0@$N/ S3 (H)

3 (H)

C-,$,-0N=

1995 $-< +19 1994 SCC (5) 572

H, 1994 (5) ?47 1994 SC$:E (4)?6

$C,=

@E$&N0,E=

HU&8MEN,=

,he H#dment o the Co#!t as deli%e!ed by

>3B3 S$$N,/ H3 ,hese a..eals ha%e been !ee!!ed to the Constit#tion Bench/ in %ie othe a..a!ent conlict o o.inions eJ.!essed in th!ee decisions o this Co#!t a th!eeH#de

Bench decision in Ch#!ak#lam ,ea Estate (>) :td3 %3 o!kmen1 and a toH#de Bench

decision in C!om.ton 8!ea%es :td3 %3 o!kmen2 on the one hand/ and a toH#deBench decision in Bank o -ndia %3 ,S3 elaala+ on the othe!3 ,he F#estion is hethe!

o!kmen ho .!oceed on st!ike/ hethe! leal o! illeal/ a!e entitled to aes o! the

.e!iod o st!ike -n the i!st to cases/ %iK3/ Ch#!ak#lam ,ea Estate1 and C!om.ton

8!ea%es2/ the %ie taken is that the st!ike m#st be both leal and #stiied to entitle the


3/15

o!kmen to the aes o! the .e!iod o st!ike he!eas the latte! decision in ,S3

elaala+ has taken the %ie that hethe! the st!ike is leal o! illeal/ the em.loyees a!e

not entitled to aes o! the .e!iod o st!ike3 ,o kee. the !eco!d st!aiht/ it m#st bementioned at the %e!y o#tset that in the latte! case/ %iK3/ ,S3 elaala+ the F#estion

L See !oceedins = State Bank o -ndia %3 State Bank Sta Union/ 1992 S#..(+) SCC 99

1 (19?9) 1 SC< 9+1 $-< 19?9 SC 996=(19?9) 2 ::H 4'7 2 (1976) + SCC 155 1976 SCC(:S) 447

+ (199') 4 SCC 744= 1991 SCC (:S) 17'= (1991) 15 $,C 747 576

hethe! the st!ike as #stiied o! not/ as not !aised and/ the!eo!e/ the #!the! F#estion

hethe! the em.loyees e!e entitled to aes i the st!ike is #stiied/ as neithe!

disc#ssed no! anse!ed3 Secondly / the i!st to decisions/ %iK3/ Ch#!ak#lam ,ea Estate1

and C!om.ton 8!ea%es2 e!e not cited at the Ba! hile decidin the said case and hencethe!e as no occasion to conside! the said decisions the!e3 ,he decisions e!e not cited

.!obably beca#se the F#estion o the #stiiability o! othe!ise o the st!ike did not allo! conside!ation3 -t is/ hoe%e!/ a..a!ent !om the ea!lie! to decisions/ %iK3/

Ch#!ak#lam ,ea Estate1 and C!om.ton 8!ea%eS2 that the %ie taken the!e is not that the

em.loyees a!e entitled to aes o! the st!ike .e!iod me!ely beca#se the st!ike is leal3,he %ie is that o! S#ch entitlement the st!ike has both to be leal and #stiied3 -n othe!

o!ds/ i the st!ike is illeal b#t #stiied o! i the st!ike is leal b#t #n#stiied/ the

em.loyees o#ld not be entitled to the aes o! the st!ike .e!iod3 Since the F#estionhethe! the em.loyees a!e entitled to aes/ i the st!ike is #stiied/ did not all o!

conside!ation in the latte! case/ %iK3/ in ,3S3 elaala+/ the!e is/ as stated in the

beinnin/ only an a..a!ent conlict in the decisions3

23 Beo!e e deal ith the F#estion/ it is necessa!y to !ee! to the acts in the indi%id#ala..eals3 C$ No3 271' o 1991

+3 0n 1'41969 a memo!and#m o settlement as sined by the -ndian Banks

$ssociation and the $ll -ndian Bank Em.loyees Unions incl#din the National

Conede!ation o Bank Em.loyees as the ith bi.a!tite settlement3 ,he a..ellant Bankand the !es.ondentState Bank Sta Union th!o#h thei! !es.ecti%e ede!ations e!e

bo#nd by the said settlement3 -n te!ms o cla#ses 6(d) and 25 o the memo!and#m o the

said settlement/ the a..ellantBank and the !es.ondentSta Union had to disc#ss and

settle ce!tain se!%ice conditions3 >#!s#ant to these disc#ssions/ th!ee settlements e!eente!ed into beteen the .a!ties on 9?19693 ,hese settlements e!e #nde! Section 2(.)

!ead ith Section 16(1) o the -nd#st!ial &is.#tes $ct/ 1947 (he!einate! !ee!!ed to as the

$ct)3 Unde! these settlements/ the em.loyees o the a..ellantBank e!e entitled toce!tain ad%antaes o%e! and abo%e those .!o%ided #nde! the $ll -ndia Bi.a!tite Settlement

o 1'419693 ,he said beneits e!e to be i%en to the em.loyees !et!os.ecti%ely ith

eect !om 11119693 -t a..ea!s that the a..ellant Bank did not immediately im.lementthe said settlement3 @ence/ the em.loyees "ede!ation sent teleJ messae to the a..ellant


4/15

Bank on 22? 1969 callin #.on it to im.lement the same itho#t #!the! loss o time3

,he messae also stated that the em.loyees o#ld be com.elled to la#nch aitation o!

im.lementation o the settlement as a conseF#ence o hich the o!kin o the Bank andthe se!%ice to the c#stome!s o#ld be aected3 -n !es.onse to this/ the Bank in its !e.ly

dated 27?1969 stated that it as !eF#i!ed to obtain the 8o%e!nments a..!o%al o!

!antin the said eJt!a beneits and that it as makin eo!ts to obtain the 8o%e!nmentsa..!o%al as soon as .ossible3 @ence the em.loyees "ede!ation sho#ld/ in the meanhile/

bea! it ith3 0n 2471969 the Em.loyees "ede!ation aain

579

!eF#ested the Bank by teleJ o e%en date to im.lement the said settlement o!thith/ thistime/ a!nin the Bank that in case o its ail#!e to do so/ the em.loyees o#ld obse!%e a

days token st!ike ate! 6619693 ,he Banks !es.onse to this messae as the same as on

the ea!lie! occasion3 0n 1661969/ the em.loyees "ede!ation !ote to the Bank that the

settlements sined e!e itho#t any .!econdition that they e!e to be clea!ed by the

8o%e!nment and hence the Bank sho#ld im.lement the settlement itho#t aaitin the8o%e!nments .e!mission3 ,he "ede!ation also/ on the same day/ !ote to the Bank

callin its attention to the .!o%isions o


5/15

con%enient to attend the same alon ith a statement o the case in te!ms o etition No3/ 1+7?4 o 1969 in the @ih Co#!t o! a !it o mandam#s to the Bank toim.lement the th!ee settlements dated 9?19693 -n that .etition/ the "ede!ation had

obtained an o!de! o inte!im in#nction on ?1'1969 !est!ainin the Bank !om i%in

eect to the ea!lie! settlement dated 1'41969 and di!ectin it i!st to im.lement thesettlements dated 9? 19693 -t a..ea!s #!the! that the em.loyees had in the meanhile/

dis!#.ted no!mal o!k in the Bank and had !eso!ted to he!ao3 ,he Bank b!o#ht these

acts/ %iK3/ ilin o the !it .etition and the inte!im o!de! .assed the!ein as ell as the

dis!#.tion o the no!mal o!k and !eso!t to he!aos by the em.loyees/ to the notice o theConciliation 0ice!3 ,he meetin beo!e the Conciliation 0ice! hich as iJed on 1+

1'1969 as ado#!ned to 171'1969 on hich date/ it as o#nd that the!e as no

.!o!ess in the sit#ation3 -t as on this date that the em.loyees "ede!ation a%e a lette! tothe Conciliation 0ice! !eF#estin him to t!eat the conciliation .!oceedins as closed3

@oe%e!/ e%en the!eate!/ the Conciliation 0ice! decided to kee. the conciliation

.!oceedins o.en to eJ.lo!e the .ossibility o !esol%in the matte! amicably3


6/15

73 0n 121'1969 the Bank iss#ed a ci!c#la! statin the!ein that i the em.loyees ent

ahead ith the st!ike on 1?1' 1969/ the Manaement o the Bank o#ld take necessa!y

ste.s to sae#a!d the inte!ests o the Bank and o#ld/ ded#ct the sala!y o! the days theem.loyees o#ld be on st!ike/ on the .!inci.le o Dno o!k/ no .ayD3 -n s.ite o the

ci!c#la!/ the em.loyees ent on st!ike on 1?1'1969 and iled a !it .etition on 711

1969 to F#ash

561

the ci!c#la! o 121'1969 and to di!ect the Bank not to make any ded#ction o sala!y o!

the day o the st!ike3

63 ,he said !it .etition as admitted on 6111969 and an inte!im in#nction as i%en

by the @ih Co#!t !est!ainin the Bank !om ded#ctin the sala!y o the em.loyees o!1? 1'19693

93 Beo!e the @ih Co#!t/ it as not dis.#ted that the Bank as a .#blic #tility se!%iceand as s#ch Section 22 o the $ct a..lied3 -t as the contention o the Bank that since

#nde! the .!o%isions o s#bsection (1)(d) o the said Section 22/ the em.loyees e!e.!ohibited !om !eso!tin to st!ike d#!in the .endency o the conciliation .!oceedins

and o! se%en days ate! the concl#sion o s#ch .!oceedins/ and since admittedly the

conciliation .!oceedins e!e .endin to !esol%e an -nd#st!ial dis.#te beteen the.a!ties/ the st!ike in F#estion as illeal3 ,he ind#st!ial dis.#te had a!isen beca#se hile

the Bank as !eF#i!ed to take the a..!o%al o the Cent!al 8o%e!nment o! the settlements

in F#estion/ the contention o the em.loyees as that no s#ch a..!o%al as necessa!y andthe!e as no s#ch condition inco!.o!ated in the settlements3 ,his bein an ind#st!ial

dis.#te ithin the meanin o the $ct/ the conciliation .!oceedins e!e %alidly .endin

on the date o the st!ike3 $s aainst this/ the contention on behal o the em.loyees asthat the!e co#ld be no %alid conciliation .!oceedins as the!e as no ind#st!ial dis.#te3,he settlements e!e al!eady a!!i%ed at beteen the .a!ties solemnly and the!e co#ld be

no #!the! ind#st!ial dis.#te ith !ea!d to thei! im.lementation3 @ence/ the conciliation

.!oceedins e!e non est3 ,he .!o%isions o Section 22(1)(d) did not/ the!eo!e/ comeinto .lay3

1'3 ,he lea!ned Sinle H#de #.held the contention o the Bank and held that the st!ike

as illeal/ and !elyin #.on the decision o this Co#!t in ,3S3 elaala case+ dismissed

the !it .etition o the em.loyees #.holdin the ci!c#la! #nde! hich the ded#ction oaes o! the day o the st!ike as o!de!ed3 $ainst the said decision/ the em.loyees

"ede!ation .!ee!!ed :ette!s >atent $..eal beo!e the &i%ision Bench o the @ih Co#!t

and the &i%ision Bench by its im.#ned #dment !e%e!sed the decision o the lea!nedSinle H#de by acce.tin the contention o the em.loyees and neati%in that o the

Bank3 ,he &i%ision Bench in s#bstance/ held that the a..!o%al o the Cent!al 8o%e!nment

as a condition .!ecedent to thei! im.lementation as not inco!.o!ated in the settlementsno! as s#ch a..!o%al necessa!y3 @ence/ the!e as no %alid ind#st!ial dis.#te o! hich

the conciliation .!oceedins co#ld be held3 Since the conciliation .!oceedins e!e

in%alid/ the .!o%isions o Section 22(1)(d) did not a..ly3 ,he st!ike as/ the!eo!e/ not


7/15

illeal3 ,he Co#!t also held that the st!ike as/ in the ci!c#mstances/ #stiied since it as

the Bank Manaements #n#stiied attit#de in not im.lementin the settlements/ hich

as !es.onsible o! the st!ike3 ,he Bench then !elied #.on to decisions o this Co#!t inCh#!ak#lam ,ea Estate1 and C!om.ton 8!ea%es2 cases and held that since the st!ike as

leal and #stiied/ no ded#ction o aes o! the

562

st!ike day co#ld be made !om the sala!ies o the em.loyees3 ,he Bench th#s alloed thea..eal and F#ashed the ci!c#la! o the 121'19693

113 Since the matte! has been !ee!!ed to the la!e! bench on acco#nt o the seemin

die!ence o o.inion eJ.!essed in ,S3 elaala+ and the ea!lie! decisions in Ch#!ak#lam

,ea Estate1 and C!om.ton 8!ea%es2/ e ill i!st disc#ss the acts and the %ie taken inthe ea!lie! to decisions3

123 -n Ch#!ak#lam ,ea Estate1 hich is a decision o th!ee lea!ned H#des/ the acts e!ethat the a..ellant,ea Estate hich as a membe! o the >lante!s $ssociation o e!ala

(So#th -ndia)/ !om time to time since 194?/ #sed to ente! into a!eements ith the!e.!esentati%es o the o!kmen/ o! .ayment o bon#s3 -n !es.ect o the yea!s 1957/ 1956

and 1959/ the!e as a settlement dated 25119?' beteen the Manaements o the

%a!io#s .lantations and thei! o!ke!s !elatin to .ayment o bon#s3 ,he a!eement.!o%ided that it o#ld not a..ly to the a..ellant,ea Estate since it had not ea!ned any

.!oit d#!in the said yea!s3 0n the !o#nd that it as not a .a!ty to the a!eement in

F#estion/ the a..ellant declined to .ay any bon#s o! the said th!ee yea!s3 ,he o!kmensta!ted aitation claimin bon#s3 ,he conciliation .!oceedins in that !ea!d ailed3 $ll 27

o!ke!s in the a..ellants acto!y st!#ck o!k on the ate!noon o +'1119?13 ,he

Manaement declined to .ay aes o! the day o the st!ike to the said acto!y o!ke!s3,he Manaement also laid o itho#t com.ensation all the o!ke!s o the estate !om 11219?1 to 61219?13 By its o!de! dated 24519?2/ the State 8o%e!nment !ee!!ed to the

-nd#st!ial ,!ib#nal th!ee F#estions o! ad#dication one o hich as hethe! the acto!y

o!kmen e!e entitled to aes o! the day o the st!ike3

1+3 ,he ,!ib#nal took the %ie that the st!ike as both leal and #stiied and hencedi!ected the a..ellant to .ay aes3 ,his Co#!t noted that at the !ele%ant time/

conciliation .!oceedins !elatin to the claim o! bon#s had ailed and the F#estion o

!ee!!in the dis.#te o! ad#dication to the ,!ib#nal as #nde! conside!ation o the8o%e!nment3 ,he :abo#! Ministe! had called o! a cone!ence o the !e.!esentati%es o

the Manaement and o!kmen and the cone!ence had been iJed on 2+1119?13 ,he

!e.!esentati%es o the o!kmen attended the cone!ence/ hile the Manaementboycotted the same3 -t as the case o the o!kmen that it as to .!otest aainst the

!ecalcit!ant attit#de o the Manaement in not attendin the cone!ence that the o!ke!s

had one on st!ike !om 1 .3m3 on the day in F#estion3 0n behal o the Manaement/ the.!o%isions o Section 2+(a) o the $ct e!e .!essed into se!%ice to contend that the st!ike

!eso!ted to by the acto!y o!ke!s as illeal3 ,he said .!o%isions !ead as ollos= D2+3


8/15

No o!kman ho is em.loyed in any ind#st!ial establishment shall o on st!ike in b!each

o cont!act and no em.loye! o any s#ch o!kman shall decla!e a locko#t

56+

(a) d#!in the .endency o conciliation .!oceedins beo!e a Boa!d and se%en days ate!the concl#sion o s#ch .!oceedins

D

,his Co#!t noted that the!e e!e no conciliation .!oceedins .endin on +'1119?1

hen the acto!y o!ke!s !eso!ted to st!ike and hence the st!ike as not hit by theao!esaid .!o%ision3 ,he Co#!t #!the! obse!%ed that i the st!ike as hit by Section 2+(a)/

it o#ld be illeal #nde! Section 24(1)(i) o the $ct3 Since/ hoe%e!/ it as not so hit/ it

olloed that the st!ike in this case co#ld not be conside!ed to be illeal3 e may F#ote

the eJact obse!%ations o the Co#!t hich a!e as ollos= D$dmittedly the!e e!e no

conciliation .!oceedins .endin beo!e s#ch a Boa!d on +' 1119?1/ the day on hichthe acto!y o!ke!s ent on st!ike and hence the st!ike does not come #nde! Section

2+(a)3 No do#bt i the st!ike/ in this case/ is hit by Section 2+(a)/ it ill be illeal #nde!Section 24(1)(i) o the $ct b#t e ha%e al!eady held that it does not come #nde! Section

2+(a) o the $ct3 -t ollos that the st!ike/ in this case/ cannot be conside!ed to be illeal3D

$lte!nati%ely/ it as contended on behal o the Manaement that in any e%ent/ the st!ike

in F#estion as tho!o#hly #n#stiied3 -t as the Manaements case that it had.a!tici.ated in the conciliation .!oceedins and hen those .!oceedins ailed/ the

F#estion o !ee!!in the dis.#te as .endin beo!e the 8o%e!nment3 ,he o!kmen

co#ld ha%e made a !eF#est to the 8o%e!nment to !ee! the dis.#te o! ad#dication and/

the!eo!e/ the st!ike co#ld not be #stiied3 S#..o!t o! this as also so#ht by theManaement !om the obse!%ations made by this Co#!t in Chand!a alai Estate Emak#lam

%3 o!kmen3 -nthat case/ this Co#!t had de.!ecated the cond#ct o o!kmen oin onst!ike itho#t aitin o! a !easonable time to kno the !es#lt o the !e.o!t o the

Conciliation 0ice!3 ,his Co#!t held that the said decision did not s#..o!t the

Manaement since the st!ike as not di!ectly in connection ith the demand o! bon#s

b#t as as a .!otest aainst the #n!easonable attit#de o the Manaement in boycottinthe cone!ence held on 2+1119?1 by the :abo#! Ministe! o the State3 @ence/ this Co#!t

held that the st!ike as not #n#stiied3 -n %ie o the act that the!e as no b!each o

Section 2+(a) and in %ie also o the act that in the ao!esaid ci!c#mstances/ the st!ikeas not #n#stiied/ the Co#!t held that the acto!y o!ke!s e!e entitled o! aes o!

that day and the ,!ib#nals aa!d in that behal as #stiied3

143 -n C!om.ton 8!ea%es :td32 the acts e!e that on 2712 19?7/ the a..ellant

Manaement intimated the o!ke!s Union its decision to !ed#ce the st!enth o theo!kmen in its b!anch at Calc#tta on the !o#nd o se%e!e !ecession in b#siness3

$..!ehendin mass !et!enchment o the o!kmen/ the Union so#ht the inte!%ention o

the Ministe! in cha!e o :abo#! and the :abo#! Commissione!/ in the matte!3 ,he!e#.on/the $ssistant :abo#!
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1484981/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1484981/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1484981/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1484981/


9/15

4 (19?') + SC< 451 = $-< 19?' SC 9'2 =(19?') 2 ::H 24+ 564

Commissione! a!!aned a oint cone!ence o the !e.!esentati%es o the Union and o the

Com.any in his oice/ ith a %ie to eJ.lo!e the a%en#es o! an amicable settlement3,o cone!ences e!e acco!dinly held on 51 19?6 and 9119?6 in hich both the

.a!ties .a!tici.ated3 $s a !es#lt o these cone!ences/ the Com.any a!eed to hold talksith the !e.!esentati%es o the Union at its Calc#tta oice on the mo!nin o 1'1 19?63

,he talk did take .lace b#t no a!eement co#ld be a!!i%ed at3 ,he $ssistant :abo#!Commissione! contin#ed to #se his ood oices to b!in abo#t an amicable settlement

th!o#h anothe! Hoint cone!ence hich as sched#led o! 12119?63 0n the ate!noon

o 1' 1 19?6/ the Com.any itho#t ino!min the :abo#! Commissione! that it as.!oceedin to im.lement its .!o.osed scheme o !et!enchment/ .#t #. a notice o

!et!enchin 9+ o the o!kmen in its Calc#tta 0ice3 ,!eatin this ste. as a se!io#s one

demandin #!ent attention and immediate action/ the o!kmen !eso!ted to st!ike 3e3311119?6 ate! i%in notice to the a..ellant and the :abo#! &i!ecto!ate and contin#ed

the same #. to 2??19?63 -n the meantime/ the ind#st!ial dis.#te in !elation to the

!et!enchment o the o!kmen as !ee!!ed by the State 8o%e!nment to the -nd#st!ial,!ib#nal on 1+19?63 By a s#bseF#ent o!de! dated 1+1219?6/ the State 8o%e!nment

also !ee!!ed the iss#e o the o!kmens entitlement to aes o! the st!ike .e!iod/ o!

ad#dication to the -nd#st!ial ,!ib#nal3 ,he -nd#st!ial ,!ib#nal acce.ted the o!kmens

demand o! aes o! the .e!iod !om 11119?6 to the end o "eb!#a!y 19?6 b#t !eectedthei! demand o! the !emainin .e!iod o the st!ike obse!%in that Dthe !ed!ess o!

!et!enchment ha%in been so#ht by the Union itsel th!o#h the ,!ib#nal/ the!e !emained

no #stiication o! the o!kmen to contin#e the st!ikeD3

153 -n the a..eal iled by the Manaement aainst the aa!d o the ,!ib#nal in this Co#!t/the only F#estion that ell o! dete!mination as hethe! the aa!d o the ,!ib#nal

!antin the st!ikin o!kmen aes o! the .e!iod !om 11119?6 to 29219?6 as%alid3 -n .a!a!a.h 4 o the #dment/ this Co#!t obse!%ed as ollos= (SCC ..3 15756)D43 -t is ell settled that in o!de! to entitle the o!kmen to aes o! the .e!iod o st!ike/

the st!ike sho#ld be leal as ell as #stiied3 $ st!ike is leal i it does not %iolate any

.!o%ision o the stat#te3 $ain/ a st!ike cannot be said to be #n#stiied #nless the !easonso! it a!e enti!ely .e!%e!se o! #n!easonable3 hethe! a

.a!tic#la! st!ike as #stiied o! not is a F#estion o act hich has to be #ded in the

liht o the acts and ci!c#mstances o each case3 -t is also ell settled that the #se o

o!ce o! %iolence o! acts o sabotae !eso!ted to by the o!kmen d#!in a st!ikedisentitles them to aes o! the st!ike .e!iod3

$te! obse!%in th#s/ the Co#!t o!m#lated the olloin to F#estions/ %iK3/ (1) hethe!

the st!ike in F#estion as illeal o! #n#stiied and (2) hethe! the o!kmen !eso!ted to

o!ce o! %iolence d#!in the said .e!iod/ that is/ 111 19?6 to 29219?63 hileanse!in the i!st F#estion/ the Co#!t .ointed o#t that no s.eciic .!o%ision o la has

been b!o#ht to its notice

565


10/15

hich !ende!ed the st!ike illeal d#!in the .e!iod #nde! conside!ation3 ,he st!ike co#ld

also not be said to be #n#stiied as beo!e the concl#sion o the talks o! conciliation

hich e!e oin on th!o#h the inst!#mentality o the $ssistant :abo#! Commissione!/the Com.any had !et!enched as many as 9+ o its o!kmen itho#t e%en intimatin the

:abo#! Commissione! that it as ca!!yin o#t its .!o.osed .lan o eectin !et!enchment

o the o!kmen3 @ence/ the Co#!t anse!ed the i!st F#estion in the neati%e3 -n othe!o!ds/ the Co#!t held that the st!ike as neithe! illeal no! #n#stiied3 0n the second

F#estion also/ the Co#!t held that the!e as no coent and disinte!ested e%idence to

s#bstantiate the cha!e that the st!ikin o!kmen had !eso!ted to o!ce o! %iolence3 ,hatas also the indin o the ,!ib#nal and hence the Co#!t held that the aes o! the st!ike

.e!iod co#ld not be denied to the o!kmen on that !o#nd as ell3

1?3 -t ill th#s be a..a!ent !om this decision that on the acts/ it as established that

the!e as neithe! a %iolation o a .!o%ision o any stat#te to !ende! the st!ike illeal no! inthe ci!c#mstances it co#ld be held that the st!ike as #n#stiied3 0n the othe! hand/ it

as the Manaement/ by takin a .!eci.itato!y action hile the conciliation .!oceedins

e!e still .endin/ hich had i%en a ca#se to the o!kmen to o on st!ike3

173 e may no !ee! to the othe! !ele%ant decisions on the s#bect3

163 -n ai!betta Estate/ otai!i %3


11/15

dis.#te ith !ea!d to i%e o the demands o! ad#dication to the -nd#st!ial ,!ib#nal/

,!i%and!#m3 ,he!eate!/ by its o!de! dated 11?195?/ the dis.#te as ithd!an !om

the ,!i%and!#m ,!ib#nal and !ee!!ed to the -nd#st!ial ,!ib#nal/ E!nak#lam3 By its aa!ddated 191'1957/ the ,!ib#nal !anted all the demands o the o!kmen3 ,he a..eal

beo!e this Co#!t as iled by the Manaement on th!ee o the demands3 0ne o the

iss#es as= D$!e the o!ke!s entitled to et aes o! the .e!iod o the st!ikeD3 0n thisiss#e/ beo!e the ,!ib#nal/ the o!kmen had .leaded that the st!ike as #stiied hile the

Manaement contended that st!ike as both illeal and #n#stiied3 ,he ,!ib#nal had

!eco!ded a indin that both the .a!ties e!e to blame o! the st!ike and o!de!ed theManaement to .ay the o!ke!s 5'O o thei! total emol#ments o! the st!ike .e!iod3

2'3 ,his Co#!t hile dealin ith the said F#estion/ held that it as clea! that on +'11

1955/ the Union kne that the conciliation attem.ts had ailed and the neJt ste. o#ld be

the !e.o!t by the Conciliation 0ice! to the 8o%e!nment3 -t o#ld/ the!eo!e/ ha%e been.!o.e! and !easonable o! the o!ke!s Union to add!ess the 8o%e!nment and !eF#est that

a !ee!ence be made to the -nd#st!ial ,!ib#nal3 ,he Union did not choose to ait and ate!

i%in notice to the Manaement on 1121955 that it had decided to st!ike o!k !om 912 1955/ act#ally sta!ted the st!ike !om that date3 ,he Co#!t also held that the!e as

nothin in the nat#!e o the demands made by the Union to #stiy the hasty action3 ,he

Co#!t then obse!%ed as #nde! =

D,he main demands o the Union e!e abo#t the c#mbly alloance and the .!ice o !ice3$s !ea!ds the c#mbly alloance they had said nothin since 1949 hen it as i!st

sto..ed till the Union !aised it on 9619553 ,he !ie%ance o! collection o eJcess .!ice

o !ice as mo!e !ecent b#t e%en so it as not o s#ch an #!ent nat#!e that the inte!ests

o labo#! o#ld ha%e s#e!ed i!!e.a!ably i the .!oced#!e .!esc!ibed by la o!settlement o s#ch dis.#tes th!o#h -nd#st!ial ,!ib#nals as !eso!ted to3 $te! all it is not

the em.loye! only ho s#e!s i .!od#ction is sto..ed by st!ikes3 hile on the one handit has to be !emembe!ed that st!ike is a leitimate and sometimes #na%oidable ea.on inthe hands o labo#! it is eF#ally im.o!tant to !emembe! that indisc!iminate and hasty #se

o this ea.on sho#ld not be enco#!aed3 -t ill not be !iht o! labo#! to think that o!

any kind o demand a st!ike can be commenced ith im.#nity itho#t eJha#stin!easonable a%en#es o! .eace#l achie%ement o thei! obects3 ,he!e may be cases he!e

the demand is o s#ch an #!ent and se!io#s nat#!e that it o#ld not be !easonable to

eJ.ect labo#! to ait till ate! askin the 8o%e!nment to make a !ee!ence3 -n s#ch cases/st!ike e%en beo!e s#ch a !eF#est has been made may ell be #stiied3 ,he .!esent is not

hoe%e! one o s#ch cases3 -n o#! o.inion the o!kmen miht ell ha%e aited o! some

time

567

ate! conciliation eo!ts ailed beo!e sta!tin a st!ike and in the meantime to ha%e askedthe 8o%e!nment to make a !ee!ence3 ,hey did not ait at all3 ,he conciliation eo!ts

ailed on +'111955/ and on the %e!y neJt day the Union made its decision on st!ike and

sent the notice o the intended st!ike !om the 9121955/ and on the 9121955/ theo!kmen act#ally st!#ck o!k3 ,he 8o%e!nment a..ea! to ha%e acted F#ickly and


12/15

!ee!!ed the dis.#te on +1195?3 -t as ate! this that the st!ike as called o3 e a!e

#nable to see ho the st!ike in s#ch ci!c#mstances co#ld be held to be #stiied3D

213 -n -ndia 8ene!al Na%iation and


13/15

273-t has to be !emembe!ed in this connection that a st!ike may be illeal i it cont!a%enes

the .!o%isions o Sections 22/ 2+ o! 24 o the $ct o! o any othe! la o! o the te!ms o

em.loyment de.endin #.on the acts o each case3 Simila!ly/ a st!ike may be #stiied o!#n#stiied de.endin #.on se%e!al acto!s s#ch as the se!%ice conditions o the o!kmen/

the nat#!e o demands o the o!kmen/ the ca#se hich led to the st!ike/ the #!ency o

the ca#se o! the demands o the o!kmen/ the !eason o! not !eso!tin to the dis.#te!esol%in machine!y .!o%ided by the $ct o! the cont!act o em.loyment o! the se!%ice

!#les and !e#lations etc3 $n enF#i!y into these iss#es is essentially an enF#i!y into the

acts hich in some cases may !eF#i!e takin o o!al and doc#menta!y e%idence3 @ences#ch an enF#i!y has to be cond#cted by the machine!y hich is .!ima!ily in%ested ith

the #!isdiction and d#ty to in%estiate and !esol%e the dis.#te3 ,he machine!y has to

come to its indins on the said iss#e by eJaminin all the .!os and cons o the dis.#te as

any othe! dis.#te beteen the em.loye! and the em.loyee3

263Sh!i 8a! a..ea!in o! the em.loyees did not dis.#te the .!o.osition o la that

notithstandin the act that the st!ike is leal/ #nless it is #stiied/ the em.loyees cannot

claim aes o! the st!ike .e!iod3 @oe%e!/ he contended that on the acts o the .!esentcase/ the st!ike as both leal and #stiied3 e do not .!o.ose to decide the said iss#es

since the .!o.e! o!#m o! the decision on the said iss#es in the .!esent case is the

ad#dicato! #nde! the $ct3

293,he st!ike as a ea.on as e%ol%ed by the o!ke!s as a o!m o di!ect action d#!inthei! lon st!#le ith the em.loye!s3 -t is essentially a ea.on o last !eso!t bein an

abno!mal as.ect o the em.loye!em.loyee !elationshi. and in%ol%es ithd!aal o

labo#! dis!#.tin .!od#ction/ se!%ices and the !#nnin o the ente!.!ise3 -t is ab#se by the

labo#! o thei! economic .oe! to b!in the em.loye! to see and meet thei! %ie.ointo%e! the dis.#te beteen them3 -n addition to the total cessation o o!k/ it takes %a!io#s

o!ms s#ch as o!kin to !#le/ o slo/ !e#sal to o!k o%e!time hen it is com.#lso!yand a .a!t o the cont!act o em.loyment/ Di!!itation st!ikeD o! stayin at o!k b#tdelibe!ately doin e%e!ythin !on/ D!#nninso!e st!ikeD/ i3e3/ disobeyin the la#l

o!de!s/ sitdon/ stayin and lie don st!ike etc3 etc3 ,he cessation o! sto..ae o o!k

hethe! by the em.loyees o! by the em.loye! is det!imental to the .!od#ction andeconomy and to the ellbein o the society as a hole3 -t is o! this !eason that the

ind#st!ial leislation hile not denyin the !iht o o!kmen to st!ike/ has t!ied to

!e#late it alon/ ith the !iht o the em.loye! to locko#t and has

591

also .!o%ided a machine!y o! .eace#l in%estiation/ settlement/ a!bit!ation andad#dication o the dis.#tes beteen them3 he!e s#ch ind#st!ial leislation is not

a..licable/ the cont!act o em.loyment and the se!%ice !#les and !e#lations many times/

.!o%ide o! a s#itable machine!y o! !esol#tion o the dis.#tes3 hen the la o! thecont!act o em.loyment o! the se!%ice !#les .!o%ide o! a machine!y to !esol%e the

dis.#te/ !eso!t to st!ike o! locko#t as a di!ect action is .!ima acie #n#stiied3 ,his is/

.a!tic#la!ly so hen the .!o%isions o the la o! o the cont!act o! o the se!%ice !#les inthat behal a!e b!eached3 "o! then/ the action is also illeal3


14/15

+'3,he F#estion hethe! a st!ike o! locko#t is leal o! illeal does not .!esent m#ch

diic#lty o! !esol#tion since all that is !eF#i!ed to be eJamined to anse! the F#estion is

hethe! the!e has been a b!each o the !ele%ant .!o%isions3 @oe%e!/ hethe! the actionis #stiied o! #n#stiied has to be eJamined by takin into conside!ation %a!io#s acto!s

some o hich a!e indicated ea!lie!3 -n almost all s#ch cases/ the .!ominent F#estion that

a!ises is hethe! the dis.#te as o s#ch a nat#!e that its sol#tion co#ld not b!ook delayand aait !esol#tion by the mechanism .!o%ided #nde! the la o! the cont!act o! the

se!%ice !#les3 ,he st!ike o! locko#t is not to be !eso!ted to beca#se the .a!ty conce!ned

has a s#.e!io! ba!ainin .oe! o! the !eF#isite economic m#scle to com.el the othe!.a!ty to acce.t its demand3 S#ch indisc!iminate #se o .oe! is nothin b#t asse!tion o

the !#le o Dmiht is !ihtD3 -ts conseF#ences a!e lalessness/ ana!chy and chaos in the

economic acti%ities hich a!e most %ital and #ndamental to the s#!%i%al o the society3

S#ch action/ hen the leal machine!y is a%ailable to !esol%e the dis.#te/ may be ha!d to#stiy3 ,his ill be .a!tic#la!ly so hen it is !eso!ted to by the section o the society

hich can ell aait the !esol#tion o the dis.#te by the machine!y .!o%ided o! the

same3 ,he st!ike o! locko#t as a ea.on has to be #sed s.a!inly o! !ed!essal o #!ent

and .!essin !ie%ances hen no means a!e a%ailable o! hen a%ailable means ha%eailed/ to !esol%e it3 -t has to be !eso!ted to/ com.el the othe! .a!ty to the dis.#te to see

the #stness o the demand3 -t is not to be #tilised to o!k ha!dshi. to the society at la!eso as to st!enthen the ba!ainin .oe!3 -t is o! this !eason that ind#st!ial leislation

s#ch as the $ct .laces additional !est!ictions on st!ikes and locko#ts in .#blic #tility

se!%ices3

+13ith the eme!ence o the o!anised labo#!/ .a!tic#la!ly in .#blic #nde!takins and.#blic #tility se!%ices/ the old balance o economic .oe! beteen the manaement and

the o!kmen has #nde!one a F#alitati%e chane in s#ch #nde!takins3 ,oday/ the

o!anised labo#! in these instit#tions has acF#i!ed e%en the .oe! o holdin the society

at la!e to !ansom/ by ithholdin labo#! and the!eby com.ellin the manaements toi%e in on thei! demands hethe! !easonable o! #n!easonable3 hat is o!otten many

times/ is that as aainst the em.loyment and the se!%ice conditions a%ailable to the

o!anised labo#! in these #nde!takins/ the!e a!e millions ho a!e eithe! #nem.loyed/#nde!em.loyed o! em.loyed on less than stat#to!ily minim#m !em#ne!ation3 ,he

em.loyment that o!kmen et and the .!oits that the em.loye!s ea!n a!e both ene!ated

by the #tilisation

592

o the !eso#!ces o the society in one o!m o! the othe! hethe! it is land/ ate!/

elect!icity o! money hich los eithe! as sha!e ca.ital/ loans !om inancial instit#tions

o! s#bsidies and eJem.tions !om the 8o%e!nments3 ,he !eso#!ces a!e to be #sed o! theellbein o all by ene!atin mo!e em.loyment and .!od#ction and ens#!in eF#itable

dist!ib#tion3 ,hey a!e not meant to be #sed o! .!o%idin em.loyment/ bette! se!%ice

conditions and .!oits only o! some3 -n this task/ both the ca.ital and the labo#! a!e to act

as the t!#stees o the said !eso#!ces on behal o the society and #se them as s#ch3 ,heya!e not to be asted o! !itte!ed aay by st!ikes and locko#ts3 E%e!y dis.#te beteen the

em.loye! and the em.loyee has/ the!eo!e/ to take into conside!ation the thi!d dimension/


15/15

%iK3/ the inte!ests o the society as a hole/ .a!tic#la!ly the inte!est o those ho a!e

de.!i%ed o thei! leitimate basic economic !ihts and a!e mo!e #no!t#nate than those in

em.loyment and manaement3 ,he #stness o! othe!ise o the action o the em.loye! o!the em.loyee has/ the!eo!e/ to be eJamined also on the an%il o the inte!ests o the

society hich s#ch action tends to aect3 ,his is t!#e o the action in both .#blic and

.!i%ate secto!3 B#t mo!e im.e!ati%ely so in the .#blic secto!3 ,he manaement in the.#blic secto! is not the ca.italist and the labo#! an eJ.loited lot3 Both a!e .aid em.loyees

and oe thei! eJistence to the di!ect in%estment o .#blic #nds3 Both a!e eJ.ected to

!e.!esent .#blic inte!ests di!ectly and ha%e to .!omote them3

+23e a!e/ the!eo!e/ mo!e than satisied that the @ih Co#!t in the .!esent case had e!!edin !eco!din its indins on both the co#nts/ %iK3/ the leality and #stiiability/ by

ass#min #!isdiction hich as .!o.e!ly %ested in the ind#st!ial ad#dicato!3 ,he

im.#ned o!de! o the @ih Co#!t has/ the!eo!e/ to be set aside3

++3@ence e allo the a..eal3 Since the dis.#te has been .endin since 1969/ by

eJe!cisin o#! .oe! #nde! $!ticle 142 o the Constit#tion/ e di!ect the Cent!al8o%e!nment to !ee! the dis.#te ith !ea!d to the ded#ction o aes o! ad#dication to

the a..!o.!iate a#tho!ity #nde! the $ct ithin eiht eeks !om today3 ,he a..eal isalloed acco!dinly ith no o!de! as to costs3

C$ No3 2?69 o 1969 and C$ Nos3 2?9'92 o 1969

+43-n these to matte!s/ a!isin o#t o a common H#dment o the @ih Co#!t/ the

F#estion in%ol%ed as mate!ially die!ent/ %iK3/ hethe! hen the em.loyees st!#cko!k only o! some ho#!s o the day/ thei! sala!y o! the hole day co#ld be ded#cted3 $s

in the case o ,S3 elaala+/ in this case also the F#estion hethe! the st!ike as

#stiied o! not as not !aised3 No a!#ment has also been ad%anced on behal o theem.loyees beo!e #s on the said iss#e3 -n the ci!c#mstances/ the la laid don by thisCo#!t in ,S3 elaala / ith hich e conc#!/ ill be a..licable3 ,he aes o the

em.loyees o! the hole day in F#estion/ i3e3/ 29121977 a!e liable to be ded#cted3 ,he

a..eals a!e/ the!eo!e/ alloed and the im.#ned decision o the @ih Co#!t is set aside3,he!e ill/ hoe%e!/ be no o!de! as to costs3

?'7

Documents

Syndicate Bank vs Umesh Naik