Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a settlement dated December 23, 1964, between the Motor Industries Company Employees Association and the management, which contained a clause requiring four days' notice before any strike. On May 11, 1966, following the suspension of a workman pending a domestic enquiry, a large number of workmen spontaneously struck work without notice, demanding withdrawal of the suspension. The strike ended later that day after discussions, and work resumed. Subsequently, the management initiated disciplinary proceedings against five workmen, alleging misconduct including stoppage of work, abandoning place of work, inciting clerks and officers, and disorderly behaviour. A domestic enquiry found three of them guilty under standing order 22, and they were dismissed. The union protested, contending that the enquiry and dismissals violated an agreement reached on May 11 not to take disciplinary action, and that the strike was not illegal because the association did not call it. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Bangalore, which upheld the enquiry and the dismissals. The workmen appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants raised six main contentions: (1) since the association did not call the strike, the notice requirement in the settlement did not apply and the charges were misconceived; (2) the strike, being spontaneous and not in breach of any law, was not illegal under Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus the standing orders were not violated; (3) the disciplinary action breached the agreement of May 11, 1966, amounting to an unfair labour practice; (4) the dismissal orders were illegal because they included a charge of intimidation which the enquiry officer had not found proved; (5) punishing only three workmen out of many who participated constituted victimisation; and (6) the enquiry officer's findings were based on no evidence or were perverse. The Court rejected all contentions. It held that the settlement, signed by the association in a representative capacity, was binding on all workmen under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The clause requiring notice applied to any strike, whether called by the union or not; to allow workmen to bypass the notice requirement by acting without the union would render the clause meaningless. The strike was in breach of the binding settlement and, although not illegal under Section 24 because it did not concern matters covered by the settlement, it was illegal under Section 29 as a contravention of a settlement in operation. Hence, participation in the strike was a misconduct under the standing orders. On the claim of unfair labour practice, the Court accepted the Labour Court's finding of fact that the management had not agreed to forego disciplinary action; only a promise of non-victimisation was made, and in fact the management did not penalise anyone merely for striking. The charge of intimidation was effectively covered by the finding of disorderly behaviour, which included threatening words. The selective punishment of the three workmen who were ringleaders did not amount to victimisation, as they had played a leading role in the disorderly conduct. Finally, the enquiry officer's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of the Labour Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Interpretation of Settlement - Binding Nature of Settlement - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sections 2(p), 18(3) - A settlement signed by a representative employees' association on behalf of the workmen is binding on all workmen. A clause requiring four days' notice before a strike prohibits any strike without notice, whether called by the association or by the workmen themselves; the workmen could not circumvent the notice requirement by acting without the association's call. (Paras not numbered) B) Industrial Disputes - Strike and Lock-out - Illegality under Section 24 vs. Section 29 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sections 23, 24, 29 - A strike that is in breach of a binding settlement but does not relate to matters covered by that settlement is not illegal under Section 24. However, it is illegal under Section 29 as it contravenes the terms of a settlement that is in operation. Participating in or inciting others to join such an illegal strike constitutes misconduct under the standing orders, warranting disciplinary action. (Paras not numbered) C) Industrial Disputes - Unfair Labour Practice - Breach of Agreement to End Strike - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court's factual finding that the management had not agreed to refrain from taking disciplinary action in connection with the strike of May 11, 1966, was supported by evidence and could not be disturbed. The disciplinary proceedings did not amount to an unfair labour practice as the management had only promised non-victimisation, not complete immunity. (Paras not numbered) D) Labour Law - Domestic Enquiry - Charge of Intimidation Proved by Disorderly Conduct - Standing Orders - The enquiry officer's finding of disorderly behaviour, which included thumping a table and using threatening words to a company officer, effectively established acts of intimidation. Therefore, the dismissal order was not vitiated by the inclusion of an intimidation charge even if the term 'intimidation' was not expressly used in the report. (Paras not numbered) E) Industrial Disputes - Victimisation - Selective Punishment - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Punishing only those workmen who were in the forefront of the crowd and who actively committed and incited disorderly behaviour did not amount to victimisation or discrimination. The case is distinguishable from Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Workmen as here the three workmen played a leading role. (Paras not numbered) F) Labour Law - Domestic Enquiry - Perverse Findings - The findings of the enquiry officer were based on evidence and could not be characterised as perverse. There was no ground to interfere with the disciplinary action. (Paras not numbered)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the strike by workmen without notice from the union was illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act; whether the settlement's clause 5 required notice only from the association; whether disciplinary action taken after an agreement to end the strike constituted unfair labour practice; whether punishment of only three out of many workers amounted to victimisation; whether the domestic enquiry findings were perverse.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; award of Labour Court upheld; dismissals of the three workmen were justified.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- settlement arrived at by representative union binds all workmen
- strike in breach of binding settlement is illegal under section 29 even if not covered by section 24
- selective punishment of ringleaders does not amount to victimisation
- findings of enquiry officer not perverse if based on some evidence
