Case Note & Summary
The present appeals were referred to a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court due to an apparent conflict among three earlier decisions regarding the entitlement of workmen to wages for strike periods. The core question was whether workmen who proceed on strike, whether legal or illegal, are entitled to wages for the period of strike. In Churakulam Tea Estate (P) Ltd. v. Workmen and Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Workmen, the Court held that the strike must be both legal and justified to entitle workmen to wages, whereas in Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala, the Court held that whether the strike is legal or illegal, employees are not entitled to wages for the strike period. The Constitution Bench noted that in T.S. Kelawala the question of justifiability was neither raised nor answered and the earlier decisions were not cited, so the conflict was only apparent. The specific appeal, Civil Appeal No. 2710 of 1991, arose from a dispute between Syndicate Bank and its employees' union regarding implementation of settlements. On 10 April 1989, a memorandum of settlement was signed as the fifth bipartite settlement between the Indian Banks' Association and All India Bank Employees' Unions. Pursuant to discussions, three settlements were entered on 9 June 1989 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, granting employees extra benefits retrospectively from 1 November 1989. The Bank did not immediately implement the settlements, citing the need for government approval. The employees' federation repeatedly demanded implementation and issued strike notices. Conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner under Section 12 of the Act from 14 September 1989 onwards. Despite several meetings, no settlement was reached, and the Conciliation Officer kept proceedings open. On 12 October 1989, the Bank issued a circular stating that if employees went on strike, salary would be deducted on the principle of no work, no pay. Employees struck work on 16 October 1989 and filed a writ petition on 7 November 1989 to quash the circular and restrain deduction of salary. The High Court admitted the petition and granted interim injunction, but later the learned Single Judge held the strike illegal and dismissed the writ petition, relying on T.S. Kelawala. The employees preferred a Letters Patent Appeal. The legal issues before the Court included whether the strike was illegal due to pendency of conciliation proceedings under Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the employees were entitled to wages. The Bank argued that since it was a public utility service and conciliation proceedings were pending, the strike was prohibited and illegal. The employees argued that there was no industrial dispute because settlements had already been reached and only implementation was pending, making conciliation proceedings non est and the strike legal. The Court's analysis, as available, focused on reconciling the earlier decisions and applying the principle that a strike must be both legal and justified for wage entitlement. However, the extracted text does not include the Supreme Court's final operative order; it records the reference to the Constitution Bench, the facts of the appeal, and the High Court's decision. The final holding of the Supreme Court is not stated in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Right to Wages During Strike - Strike Must Be Both Legal and Justified for Wage Entitlement - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(p), Section 18(1), Section 22 - The court examined conflicting precedents; Churakulam Tea Estate and Crompton Greaves held strike must be legal and justified for wages, while T.S. Kelawala held employees not entitled regardless. Court observed that in T.S. Kelawala justifiability was not raised and earlier decisions not cited, so conflict only apparent. Held that if strike is illegal but justified or legal but unjustified, no wages. (Paras 1-2) B) Labour Law - Strikes in Public Utility Services - Prohibition During Pendency of Conciliation - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 22(1)(d) - Bank was public utility service and conciliation proceedings were pending; employees prohibited from striking during pendency and seven days after conclusion. High Court held strike on 16-10-1989 illegal because conciliation validly pending. (Paras 9-10) C) Labour Law - Industrial Dispute and Conciliation - Existence of Dispute Despite Settlement - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 12 - Employees contended no industrial dispute because settlements already reached and only implementation pending, so conciliation non est. Bank contended dispute over requirement of government approval constitutes industrial dispute making conciliation valid. The Conciliation Officer kept proceedings open. (Paras 5-9) D) Labour Law - Wages During Strike - No Work No Pay Principle - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Bank circular dated 12-10-1989 stated salary would be deducted for strike days on principle of no work, no pay. Employees challenged circular by writ petition. High Court upheld circular relying on T.S. Kelawala and dismissed writ petition. (Paras 7,10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether workmen who proceed on strike, whether legal or illegal, are entitled to wages for the period of strike; whether a strike must be both legal and justified to entitle workmen to wages; whether strike on 16-10-1989 was illegal due to pendency of conciliation proceedings under Section 22(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947
Law Points
- strike must be both legal and justified to entitle workmen to wages for strike period
- illegal but justified strike or legal but unjustified strike does not entitle wages
- no work no pay principle
- Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Section 2(p) Section 18(1) Section 12 Section 22 Section 22(1)(d)
- Industrial Disputes Central Rules 1957 Rule 58.4 Rule 41(a)
- conciliation proceedings
- public utility service strike prohibited during pendency of conciliation and seven days after conclusion
