Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between an employer owning collieries and its workmen regarding the legality of change in weekly rest days and subsequent work stoppages under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948. The appellant employer, due to shortage of power, decided to stagger weekly rest days in all its collieries. By notice dated September 10, 1963, it introduced a new schedule making Wednesday a rest day for Sijua colliery and Thursday for Bhelatand colliery, replacing the previous Sunday rest day. The change was to take effect from September 15, 1963, but workers did not turn up on that Sunday, leading to negotiations with one union and postponement to September 22, 1963. However, workers again did not work on September 22 and later on September 29, 1963. When they reported for work on September 25 at Sijua and September 26 at Bhelatand, they were refused work on the ground that those days were the new weekly rest days. The appellant filed six applications before the Regional Labour Commissioner under Para 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme seeking a declaration that the workmen had resorted to illegal strikes on September 15, 22 and 29. The respondent workmen filed two applications alleging illegal lock-out on September 25 and 26. The Regional Labour Commissioner held in favour of the workmen, finding no illegal strike and holding that the non-working on September 25 and 26 was due to an illegal lock-out. The Central Industrial Tribunal confirmed this, and the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on certificate. The main legal issues were whether Para 8 of the Scheme, which created a quasi-judicial authority, was ultra vires as excessive delegation, and whether the change in rest days without notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was valid. The appellant argued that Para 8 was constitutionally invalid because only the legislature could create a tribunal, and that change of rest days did not affect conditions of service specified in the Fourth Schedule. The workmen contended that the change required notice under Section 9A and that its absence made the change ineffective, rendering the Sundays as working days and the employer's refusal to give work on Wednesday and Thursday an illegal lock-out. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions. It held that the legislative policy and principles were adequately laid down in Section 5 read with the Third Schedule of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, and Para 8 merely worked out ancillary details, so it was valid subordinate legislation and not excessive delegation. On the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court ruled that change of weekly rest days from Sunday to other weekdays fell within Items 4, 5 and 8 of the Fourth Schedule read with Section 9A, requiring notice. It observed that the object of Section 9A is to afford workmen an opportunity to consider the effect of the proposed change and represent their views, and that financial loss is not the sole criterion; Sunday rest has social and family significance. The Court also referred to Sections 2(f), 52 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948 to reinforce that Sunday rest is not immaterial. Consequently, the change in rest days was held ineffective, the previous schedule of Sundays as rest days remained operative, and the workmen could not be said to have gone on illegal strike. The employer's deliberate refusal to give work on September 25 and 26, knowing the change was not acceptable, without notice under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act as required for a public utility service, amounted to an illegal lock-out under Section 24. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Delegated Legislation - Excessive Delegation - Validity of Quasi-Judicial Authority Under Scheme - Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948, Section 5 and Third Schedule Item 7 - Para 8 of Coal Mines Bonus Scheme provided for determination of legality of strikes by Regional Labour Commissioner - Appellant contended creation of quasi-judicial tribunal by delegated legislation is ultra vires - Supreme Court held that legislative policy and principles were adequately laid down in Section 5 read with Third Schedule and Para 8 only worked out subsidiary details, thus amounting to valid subordinate legislation and not excessive delegation - Held that Para 8 is intra vires (Paras 1-12). B) Industrial Disputes Act - Conditions of Service - Change of Weekly Rest Day Requires Notice - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 9A and Fourth Schedule Items 4, 5, 8 - Change of weekly rest days from Sunday to other weekdays falls within 'hours of work and rest intervals', 'leave with wages and holidays', and 'withdrawal of customary concession or privilege' - Employer must give notice in prescribed manner before effecting such change - Object is to afford workmen opportunity to consider and represent - Held that change without notice is ineffective and previous schedule of rest days remains operative (Paras 1-12). C) Factories Act - Weekly Rest Day - Importance of Sunday Rest - Factories Act, 1948, Sections 2(f), 52, 63 - Sections indicate statutory recognition that Sunday rest is not immaterial or unimportant - Financial loss not sole criterion; Sunday holiday has social and family significance - Court used this to reinforce interpretation of Section 9A Fourth Schedule - Held that change of rest day from Sunday is a matter affecting conditions of service (Paras 1-12). D) Industrial Disputes Act - Illegal Strike and Lockout - Consequences of Non-Compliance with Section 9A - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 9A, 22, 24 - Workmen's failure to work on Sundays September 22 and 29 not illegal strike because change ineffective - Employer's refusal to give work on September 25 and 26 deliberate closure of collieries, knowing workmen did not accept change, without notice under Section 22 as coal is public utility service - Held that employer declared illegal lockout under Section 24 (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether Para 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme, creating a quasi-judicial authority to decide legality of strikes, is ultra vires as excessive delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether change of weekly rest days from Sunday to other week days without notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal. 3. Whether the workmen resorted to illegal strike on Sundays or the employer declared illegal lock-out on the substituted rest days.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed. Para 8 of Coal Mines Bonus Scheme valid; change of weekly rest days without Section 9A notice ineffective; no illegal strike by workmen; employer's refusal to give work on September 25 and 26 deliberate and amounts to illegal lockout under Section 24 read with Section 22 Industrial Disputes Act.
Law Points
- Delegated legislation permissible only when legislative policy and principle adequately laid down and delegate empowered to work out subsidiary details within guidelines
- Section 9A Industrial Disputes Act requires notice before effecting any change in conditions of service specified in Fourth Schedule
- Change of weekly rest day from Sunday to another weekday falls within Items 4
- 5 and 8 of Fourth Schedule
- Object of Section 9A is to afford workmen opportunity to consider proposed change and represent views
- Financial loss not sole criterion for determining change in conditions of service
- Sections 2(f)
- 52 and 63 of Factories Act
- 1948 indicate importance of Sunday as weekly rest day
- Non-compliance with Section 9A renders change ineffective and previous rest days operative
- Mere refusal to give work does not amount to lock-out but deliberate closure of collieries without notice under Section 22 Industrial Disputes Act constitutes illegal lock-out under Section 24
