# Ajtnsr Singh v. The State of Punjab

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 428
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1950-04-24
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan, Das, Bhagwati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ajtnsr-singh-v-the-state-of-punjab-30
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Ind1<strial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 20 (2) (b), 22 ( 1) ( d), 24Gonciliation proceedings-Withdrawal of workers-Strike after
Conciliation Officer has made his report but befo1·e it is received by
Governnient-:::Legality of strike-Chief
Labo~ir Oo1n1nissioner
whether agent of Government.
A conciliation proceeding cannot be deemed to have concluded
under s. 20 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in a case
where no settlement has been arrived at, as Soon as the Conciliation Officer sends his report. It can be deemed to have concluded
only when the report is actually received by the appropriate
Governme:nt.
(1) (1951) S.C.R. 729.
;
;, .
-..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
429
The Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, is not, in the
absence of any express delegation of powers by the Central
Government, the agent of the latter for the purpose of receiving
the report of a Conciliation Officer.
•
The appellants who had sent notice of their intention to strike
declined to parti'cipate in conciliation proceedings which were
initiated by the Regional Labonr Commissioner, and the latter
sent his report to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, on
October 22, 1949.
The report was received by the Chief Labour
Commissioner on October 25, but a copy of the report was sent by
the Chief Labour Commissioner, and received by the Ministry of
Labour, only on November 17. Meanwhile the appellants went
on strike on November 7:
Held, confirming the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, that
under s. 20 (2) (b) of tbe Act the conciliation proceeding held by
the Regional Labour Commissioner concluded only on November
17 when his report was received by the Central Government, and
as the appellants went on strike before that date, it was a strike
during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and therefore
illegal under s. 22 (1) (d) of the Act,
The provisions of several sections of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 194 7, show that time is of the essence of the Act and the requirements of its relevant provisions must be pnnctually obeyed
and carried out, if the Act is to operate harmoniously.
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 133 of 1951. Appeal by special leave granted
by the Supreme Court on the 1st December, 1950,
from the Judgment dated the 24th April, 1950, of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad,
in Appeal No. 1 of 1950, arising out of Order dated
the 2nd February, 1950, of the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad.
N. 0. Chatterjee (S. L. Ohhibber, with him) for the
appellants.
S. P. Sinha (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for the respondent.
195'J. December 12. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAS J.-This appeal by special leave is directed
ll.gll.in'tit thB dBcision dated April 24, 1950, of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad
confirming the decision dated February 2, 1950, of
1962
Workers of tlte
Industry
Colliery,
Dhanbad
v.
Managerne11t of
the Industry
Colliery.
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
J95i
the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, which had declared the one-day strike by the
ll'"orket'S of the
Industry
appellants that took place on November 7, 1949, to
·Colliery,
be an illegal strike. 'rhe relevant facts are as folDhanbad
lows: -
Mana;;mcnt of
On October 13, \949, the appell~nts through the
the Industry Secretary of their llmou gave a notwe to the respondOol!iery.
ents, nnder section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, that they proposed to call a one-day strike
Dos J.
on the expiry of November 6, 1949, for the fulfilment
of demands, 16 in number, noted therein. This strike
notice was, in accordance with rule 85 of the rules
framed under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, sent
to (1) the Conciliation Officer (Central), Dhanbad, (2)
the Regional r~abour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, (3) the Chief Labour Commissioner, Department
of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, (4) Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New
Delhi, and (5) A.D.C

## Text

1962
Ajtnsr Singh
v.
The State of
Punjab.
Mahajan J.
1962
Dee. 12
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
enmity. He stuck to that reply in the Court of Session
after fully understanding what he was asked. It is
wejl settled that every error or omission not in compliance with the provisions of section 342 does not
necessarily vitiate a trial. Errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities, and, as held
in Tara Singh's case('), the question, whether $he trial
is vitiated, in each case depends upon the degree
of the error and upon whether prejudice has been or
is likely to have been caused to the accused.
We are
of the opinion that the disregard of the provisions
of section 342 in this case is not so gross as would
justify our quashing the conviction and ordering a
retrial.
The result is that we uphold the judgment of the
High Court and dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant: R. S. Gheba.
Agent for the respondent : G. H. Ra}adhyaksha.
WORKERS OF THE INDUS'l'RY COLLIERY,
DHANBAD
'V.
MANAGEMEN'l' OF 'l'HE INDUSTRY
COLLIERY.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Ind1<strial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 20 (2) (b), 22 ( 1) ( d), 24Gonciliation proceedings-Withdrawal of workers-Strike after
Conciliation Officer has made his report but befo1·e it is received by
Governnient-:::Legality of strike-Chief
Labo~ir Oo1n1nissioner
whether agent of Government.
A conciliation proceeding cannot be deemed to have concluded
under s. 20 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in a case
where no settlement has been arrived at, as Soon as the Conciliation Officer sends his report. It can be deemed to have concluded
only when the report is actually received by the appropriate
Governme:nt.
(1) (1951) S.C.R. 729.
;
;, .
-..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
429
The Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, is not, in the
absence of any express delegation of powers by the Central
Government, the agent of the latter for the purpose of receiving
the report of a Conciliation Officer.
•
The appellants who had sent notice of their intention to strike
declined to parti'cipate in conciliation proceedings which were
initiated by the Regional Labonr Commissioner, and the latter
sent his report to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, on
October 22, 1949.
The report was received by the Chief Labour
Commissioner on October 25, but a copy of the report was sent by
the Chief Labour Commissioner, and received by the Ministry of
Labour, only on November 17. Meanwhile the appellants went
on strike on November 7:
Held, confirming the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, that
under s. 20 (2) (b) of tbe Act the conciliation proceeding held by
the Regional Labour Commissioner concluded only on November
17 when his report was received by the Central Government, and
as the appellants went on strike before that date, it was a strike
during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and therefore
illegal under s. 22 (1) (d) of the Act,
The provisions of several sections of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 194 7, show that time is of the essence of the Act and the requirements of its relevant provisions must be pnnctually obeyed
and carried out, if the Act is to operate harmoniously.
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 133 of 1951. Appeal by special leave granted
by the Supreme Court on the 1st December, 1950,
from the Judgment dated the 24th April, 1950, of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad,
in Appeal No. 1 of 1950, arising out of Order dated
the 2nd February, 1950, of the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad.
N. 0. Chatterjee (S. L. Ohhibber, with him) for the
appellants.
S. P. Sinha (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for the respondent.
195'J. December 12. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAS J.-This appeal by special leave is directed
ll.gll.in'tit thB dBcision dated April 24, 1950, of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad
confirming the decision dated February 2, 1950, of
1962
Workers of tlte
Industry
Colliery,
Dhanbad
v.
Managerne11t of
the Industry
Colliery.
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
J95i
the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, which had declared the one-day strike by the
ll'"orket'S of the
Industry
appellants that took place on November 7, 1949, to
·Colliery,
be an illegal strike. 'rhe relevant facts are as folDhanbad
lows: -
Mana;;mcnt of
On October 13, \949, the appell~nts through the
the Industry Secretary of their llmou gave a notwe to the respondOol!iery.
ents, nnder section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, that they proposed to call a one-day strike
Dos J.
on the expiry of November 6, 1949, for the fulfilment
of demands, 16 in number, noted therein. This strike
notice was, in accordance with rule 85 of the rules
framed under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, sent
to (1) the Conciliation Officer (Central), Dhanbad, (2)
the Regional r~abour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, (3) the Chief Labour Commissioner, Department
of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, (4) Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New
Delhi, and (5) A.D.C., Dhanbad. This notice was
received at the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner' (Central), Dhanbad, on October 15, 1949.
The Regional Labour Commissioner. (Central) held
conciliation proceedings at Dhanbad OJ;J. October 22,
1949, but the appellants, by their letter of the same
date, declined to participate in the proceedings alleg-
. ing that they were convinced that nothii:ig 'ivould
come out of the same and that the proceedings should,
therefore, be considered "to be ceased." On the same
day the Regional !Jabour Commissioner (Central),
Dhanbad, addressed letter No. RLC/CON 5 ('roken)
7910to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi,
stating that after receipt of thil notice of strike he
had issued notice to the parties for conciliation, that
the employers' representatives were ready to discuss
the demands but the Union's representative filed a
petition in writing saying that they did not want to
. participate in the proceedings and that no fresh
material had been placed before him to change his
view and that he was not in favour of recommending
a reference of the demand to the Industrial Tribunal.
'.!'he letter ended with a request that the Government
...
'
S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
431
may be informed of the situation. It appears that
1952
this report was received in the office of the Chief
N
0
Wo1·kers of the
Labour Commissioner,
ew Delhi, on
c~ober 25,
industry
1949. Although the Chief Labour Commissioner, •in
Colliery,
his letter of November 17, 1949, to the Regional
Dhanbad
Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, states that
v.
the contents of the latter's report had already been Managem ... t 0f
. t d t th M' . t
f L b
f
the industry
commumca e
o
e 1 mis ry o
a our,. a copy o
Colliery.
the report was actually sent to and received by the
Ministry of Labour only on that day.
In the meanDas J.
time on November 7, 1949, the appellants about 700
in number, went on one-day strike as per their strike
notice.
Apparently the respondents contended that
the strike was illegal and they made an application,
under section 8 (2) of the Coal Mines Provident
Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948, to the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, for a decision on the question whether the strike was legal
or illegal. By his order dated February 2, 1950, the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad,
declared that the strike was illegal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the appellants, under section 8 ( 4) of the last mentioned Act, preferred an
appeal to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad which, however, also held that the
strike was illegal and that the conclusions arrived at
by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) were
correct and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The
appellants thereafter applied for and obtained special
leave to appeal to this Court .
The only question raised on this appeal is whether
the strike was illegal. Section 24 (1) of the Act 'provides, inter alia, that a strike shall be illegal if it is
commenced or declared in contravention of section 22
or section 23 of the Act. Section 22 (1) provides as
follows:-
" 22. (1) No person employed in a public utility
service shall go on strike in breach of contract-
(a) without giving to the employer notice of
strike, as hereinafter provided, within six wee)rs before
E1triking; or
5ii
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1952
(b) within fourteen days of giving such notice;
or
·rvorkers of the
Industry
(c) ·before the expiry of the date of strike speci-
. Colliery,
fi&d in any such notice as aforesaid; or
Dhanbad
(d) during the pendency of any conciliation pro-
'f
v.
t 1 ceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days
lt anage1ne1~ o
f
h
l .
f
h
d.
,,
111, Industry a ter t e cone us10n o sue procee mgs.
·Colliery.
Notice of strike having been given in terms of
clause (a) and 14 days havingelapsedafterthegiving
·Das J.
· of such notice as required by clause (b) and the.
actual strike having taken place after· November 6,
1949, being the date specified in the strike notice, the
only other question for consideration is whether the
strike took place during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer, and
seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
Under section '20(1) a conciliation proceeding shall
be deemed to have commenced on the date on which
a notice of strike under section '2'2 is received by the
Conciliation Officer. In this case the strike notice
was received by the Regional Labour Commissioner
(Central) who is the Conciliation Officer, on October
15, 1949, and the conciliation proceedings, therefore,
commenced on that date under section '20(1). 'rhe
relevant portion of sub-section ('2) of that section
runs as follows:-
" ('2) A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to
have concluded-
(a) ................................ .,
(b) where no settlement is arrived at, when the
report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the
appropriate Government or when the report of the
Board is published under section 17, as the case may
be, or
(c) ................................. "
The Regional I.Jabour Commissioner ( Centra 1),
who is the Conciliation Officer in this dispute, is
required by section l '2 to hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner and, without delay,
investi$ate the dispute anq to do all such
thin~s as
..
j
S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS
433
he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties
to
come to a fair
and amicable settlement of
the dispute.
In this case the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) held conciliation proceedings tin
October 22, 1949, but no settlement could be arrived
at as the appellants declined to take part in the proceedings on the ground that they were convinced
that nothing would come out of it.
That being the
position, under section 12 ( 4) it became the duty of
the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to "as
soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full
report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the
dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof
together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances and the reasons on account of which, in
this case, a settlement could not be arrived at". Subsection (6) of this section requires that the report
shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within
such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government.
As already stated, the conciliation proceedings commenced on October 15, 1949.
The report, therefore, was to be submitted within
fourteen days from that date. In point of fact the
report was sent by the Regional Labour Commis-
. sioner (Central) to the Chief Labour Commissioner,
New Delhi, on October 22, 1949 (which was well
within 14 days from the commencement of the conciliation proceedings), with the request that the
Government may be informed of the situation.
Under sub-section ( 4) the report has to be sent to
the " appropriate Government " which according to
the definition under section 2 (a) means, in relation
to an industrial dispute concerning a mine, the
Central Government.
The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) did not send the report direct to
Central Government but sent it to the Chief Labour
Commissioner, New Delhi, in accordance with what
has been called the usual course and routine of
Workers of the
Industry
Colliery,
Dha11bad
v.
if!anageine1tt of
the Industry
Colliery.
Das J,
434
SUPREME COUR'l' REPOR'l'S
[1953]
196•
official busiuess. The report, however, was received
by the Central Government on or about November
Workers of the
Industry
17, 1949, and it is only on such receipt th~,t the conGolliery.
cniation proceedings are to be deemed to have conDhonbad
eluded according to the provisions of section 20(2) (b).
v_
Prima. facie, therefore, the strike which took place
Management of on November 7 1949 was during the pendency of the
the Industr·y
·1· t•
'
d·'
h Id b
h
h
•t•
Colliery.
conm 1a 10n procee mgs as
e
y t e aut on 1es
below.
Das J.
Shri N. C. Chatterjee, however, argues that in
point of fact the conciliation proceedings came to an
end when the appellants had withdrawn from the
proceedings and the Regional Labour Commissioner
(Central) had sent his report. It is by a legal fiction,
introduced by section 20 (2) (b), that the conciliation
proceedings are prolonged until the actual receipt of
the report by the appropriate Government. According to Shri N. C. Chatterjee the conciliation proceedings should be held to terminate when the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) sent his
report within fourteen days of the commencement of
the conciliation proceedings.
The difficulty in
accepting this argument is that while the word
"send" is used in section 12 (4) and the word" submitted" in section 12(6), the word used in section 20
(2) (b) is" received".
That word obviously implies
the actual receipt of the report.
To say that the
conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have
concluded when the report should, in the ordinary
cour.se of business, have been received by the appropriate Government would introduce an element of
uncertainty, for the provisions of section 22 (1) (d)
clearly contemplate that the appropriate Government should have a clear seven days' time after the
conclusion of the conciliation proceedings to make
up its mind as to the further steps it should take. It
is, therefore, necessary that the beginning of the
seven days' time should be fixed so thatJ there would
be certainty as to when the seven days' time would
expire. It is, therefore, provided in section 20 (2) (h)
·~
that the proceedings shall be deemed
to
have
~. -
..
-
s.c.:R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
435
concluded, where no settlement is arrived at, when
1952
the report is actu.ally received b.y the appropriate Work;;;of the
Government. Shn N. C. Chatteriee on the other
Industry
hand strongly urges, and not without some force,
Collier~.
that on that construction it may be possible for the
Dhanbad
Government or its officers to withhold the report
v.
designedly or the report may be lost in course of Mthana1gedmentt of
·
b
11
· d
ft
th
·
e n us ry
transit or may e actua y receive
a er
e expiry
Colliery.
of the date fixed for the strike in the notice under
section 22 (1).
Shri N. 0. Chatterjee also points out
Das J.
that it will not be possible for the workers to know
when the report is actually received and their right
to strike may thus be taken away from them.
Shri
N. O. Chatterjee contends that the Ql-overnment
cannot take advantage of its own wrong. While we
feel considerable force in Shri N. C. Chatterjee's
argument based on hardship we are bound to assume
that the public officers concerned would act fairly
and properly. Further, it is not a case of the Government taking advantage of its own wrong a.s suggested
by Shri N. C. Chatterjee, for here we are concerned
with a dispute between the employers and the employees and there is no material before us to justify
our attributing the misdeeds, if any, of the Regional
Labour Commissioner
(Central) or of the Chief
Labour Commissioner, to the respondents, the employers who are entitled to take their stand on the
language of the law.
The Court can only construe
the statute as it finds it and if there is any defect in
the law it is for other authority than this Court to
rectify the same.
Shri N. C. Chatterjee also urges that the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central) should have, under
section 12, sent his report to the appropriate Government, which in this case means the Central Government, and he should not have sent the report to the
Chief Labour Commissioner.
Assuming that that is
the position then the fact will still remain that the
Central Government did not receive the report and,
therefore,
the conciliation proceedings did
not
come to an end when the strike took place.
Shri .
1952
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
N. C. Chatterjee also suggests that the Chief Labour
Commissioner should have returned the report to the
Workers of the
fodustry
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) because
Colliery,
urfder the law the report should not have been made
Dha,.bad
to him.
He, however, did not return the same to the
v.
Regional Commissioner but took upon himself to forMa .. agcment of ward the same to the Labour Ministry. In the cirthe Industi·y
Sh . N C Ch
.
h
CoU-e ,
cumstances,
1
n
.
.
atterJee urges, ou t e
'ry.
authority of Ohattirbhuj Rani Lal v. Secretary of State
Da• J.
for Indin ('),that the Chief Labour Commissioner
must be deemed to be the agent of the Central
Government for the purpose of receiving the report.
We adjourned this case in order to enable Shri
N. C. Chatterjee to ascertain whether there was any
delegation of authority in this behalf by the Central
Government to the 'Chief Labour Commissioner.
Shri N. C. Chatterjee has not been able to discover
any such delegation of authority. It seems obvious
to us that the Chief I"abonr Commissioner cannot
possibly be regarded for this purpose as the Central
Government. In point of fact by a notification in
the Gazette of India dated April 5, 1947, the Chief
Dabour Commissioner has heen appointed as a Conciliation Officer and, therefore, in conciliation proceedings conducted by· him he has to submit his
reporb to the Central Government. It follows, therefore, that the Chief Labour Commissioner must be an
authority separate from the Central Government.
According to rule 85 to which reference has been
made the strike notice has to be sent, amongst others,
to the Chief r~abour Commissioner as well as to the
Department of Labour of the Government of India,
which again indicates that the two are different
entities. 'l'he Chief J1abour Commissioner is, therefore, only the channel or post office through which
correspondence between the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Central Government is to
pass and he cannot possibly be regarded as an agent
of the Central Government for the purpose of receiving the report.
The Chief Labour Commissioner
.:;.
. '
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS
437
being the official channel the ruling relied upon by
1962
Shri N. C. Chatterjee can have no application to the
facts crf this case.
Woi·kers of the
J,,dustry
For reasons stated above we are of opinion that
Colliery,
the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below
Dhanbad'
on this point are correct and that this appeal must
v.
b d.
.
d
I
th
l.
•
t
f h
Management of
e ism1sse .
n
e yecu11ar ctrcums ances o t e
the Industry
case, however, we think that there should be no
. Colliery.
order as to costs and the parties should bear their
own costs.
. Dai J.
Before concluding we must draw the attention of
the authorities concerned to the slack and unbusinesslike manner in which the matter was dealt with in
the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner.
The
Act requires that the Conciliation Officer must submit his report within 14 days from the commencement of conciliation proceedings and then on receipt
of the report by the appropriate Government the
conciliation proceedings are to be deemed to have
concluded. Although factually the conciliation proceedings terminate when a settlement is arrived at
before the Conciliation Officer or when it is found
that no settlement can be arrived at, the Act, by a
legal fiction, prolongs the conciliation proceedings
until the actual receipt of the report by the appropriate Government and goes on to provide that the
appropriate Government must have seven days' time
to consider what further steps it would take under
the Act.
Up to the expiry of this period of 7 days
the Act permits no strike but after that period is over
the employees are left free to resort to collective·
action by way of a strike.
Indeed, it is on the basis
of these provisions that the date of strike has to be
carefully selected and specified in the notice of strike
to be given by the employees under section 22 (1) of
the Act.
Thus, even a cursory perusal of the Act
makes it clear that time is of the essence of the Act
and that the requirements of its relevant provisions
must be punctually obeyed and carried out if the Act
is to operate harmoniously at all. In this case the
9onciliation officer subiμitted his re~ort on OctobEH
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953)
1952
22, 1949, i.e., well within 14 days from the commencement of the conciliation proceedings as required by
Worker.s of the
l
(6)
f h
A
Th
Industry
section
2
o t e
ct.
e report was sent
Colliery,
tlirough what has been called the routine official
• Dhanbad
channel. Admittedly, it was received in the office of
v.
the Chief Labour Commissioner at New Delhi on
Management of October 25, 1949, but surprisingly.it was not passed
'"0' flnldustry on to the Ministry of Labour, which is also in New
o isry.
.
.
Delhi, until about November 17, 1949.
'The emDas J.
ployees had no means of knowing when the report
was actually received by the Central Government
which is the appropriate Government in this case or
when the period of 7 days after such receipt expired.
But in the belief, entertained, we think, quite legitimately, that the official business had been conducted
regularly and promptly the employees went on strike
on November 7, 1949, as previously notified. ·It now
transpires that the report had not been actually
received by the Central Government and, therefore,
on the letter of the law, the strike must be held to be
illegal and the employees must face and bear the
consequences of an illegal strike and may even be
deprived of benefits to which they would otherwise
have been entitled.
This hardship has been thrown
upon the employees for no· fault of their own but
simply because of the callous indifference or utter
inefficiency and slackness apparently prevailing in
the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner which
cannot be too strongly deprecated. It is to be hoped
that public officers would, in the discharge of their
official duties in future, show a greater sense of
responsibility than what they have done in the case
before us.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellants: Gobind Saran Singh.
Agent for the respondent: P. K., Chatterjee.
-. .-. -. --:-=
' '