# AND ANOTHER v. THEIR WORKMEN

- **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 364
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958-07-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1959
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/and-another-v-their-workmen-1615
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Ind1tstrial Dispute-Rationalisation scheme objected to by worknien~Scheme put into operation pending reference to
Tribitnal~
Workmen's refusal to work-Lock-out-Claim for wages for the period
of lock-out-Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), ss. 3(2),
9A, 33, 33A.
A rationalisation scheme in the mills of the appellant companies was agreed to by the Works Committee and a notice under
s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was given to the
-
..
<
..,
-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
365
Union of their workmen. The workmen, however, objected to
the introduction of the scheme and the dispute was referred by
the Government to the Tribunal on December r3, r957. On
December r6, the management of the companies put the rationalisation scheme into operation but the workmen refused to do
the additional work placed on them by the scheme. Later, the
same day, the mills declared a lock-out.
Work was, however,
resumed a few days later as a result of a settlement, and a dispute
arose as to whether the workmen were entitled to the payment
of wages for the period during which the mills were closed:
Held, (r) that the workmen's representatives on the Works
Committee represented the workmen only for the purpose of the
functions of the Works Committee and that the approval of the
scheme of rationalisation by the Works Committee was not binding on the workmen or their Union.
Kemp and Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [r955] I L.L.J.
48, approved.
(2) that the introduction of a rationalisation scheme was an
alteration of' conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen.
(3) that the alteration of conditions of service was made not
when notice under s. gA of the Industrial Disputes Act was given
but on December r6, when the rationalisation scheme was put
into operation, and that as it was done when the reference was
pending before the Tribunal, it wa~ a contravention of s. 33 of
the Act.
(4) that the closure of the mills in the circumstances of this
case by the employer amounted to an illegal lock-out and that
the workmen unable to work in consequence of the lock-out were
entitled to wages for the period of absence caused by such
lock-out.

## Text

364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
r 96o
order destruction of articles seized in pursuance of a
warrant issued under s. 430.
Chairman of the
The argument advanced by counsel for the MunicipalBankura
ity that the seizure was in exercise of the powers under
1~1 unicipality
-
v.
s. 428 and not under s. 430 has, in our judgment, no
Lalji Raja & San' force. The report of the Chairman of the Municipality
dated March 10, 1950, makes it abundantly clear that
Shah J.
the search warrant was issued by the Sub-Divisional
Officer in exercise of his authority under s. 430 of the
Bengal Municipal Act.
Any admission by the respondents that the seizure was under s. 428 of the Act
in proceedings for resisting the order which the
Municipality claimed to obtain against them can have
no value.
z960
March 23.
Section 428 does not contemplate a seizure of articles
of food which are unwholesome, under the authority
of a Magistrate, and s. 430 is expressly the proviRion
which authorises a Magistrate to issue a warrant, for
such seizure. The powers under s. 431(2) are expressly
directed to be exercised by the Magistrate in respect
of articles seized under s. 428, and there is nothing in
the former provision which may justify the view that
those powers can also be exercised in respect of articles
seized under a warrant issued under s. 430. In our
opinion, the High Court was right in its conclusion.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
M/S. NORTH BROOK JUTE CO. LTD.
AND ANOTHER
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and
K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Ind1tstrial Dispute-Rationalisation scheme objected to by worknien~Scheme put into operation pending reference to
Tribitnal~
Workmen's refusal to work-Lock-out-Claim for wages for the period
of lock-out-Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), ss. 3(2),
9A, 33, 33A.
A rationalisation scheme in the mills of the appellant companies was agreed to by the Works Committee and a notice under
s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was given to the
-
..
<
..,
-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
365
Union of their workmen. The workmen, however, objected to
the introduction of the scheme and the dispute was referred by
the Government to the Tribunal on December r3, r957. On
December r6, the management of the companies put the rationalisation scheme into operation but the workmen refused to do
the additional work placed on them by the scheme. Later, the
same day, the mills declared a lock-out.
Work was, however,
resumed a few days later as a result of a settlement, and a dispute
arose as to whether the workmen were entitled to the payment
of wages for the period during which the mills were closed:
Held, (r) that the workmen's representatives on the Works
Committee represented the workmen only for the purpose of the
functions of the Works Committee and that the approval of the
scheme of rationalisation by the Works Committee was not binding on the workmen or their Union.
Kemp and Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [r955] I L.L.J.
48, approved.
(2) that the introduction of a rationalisation scheme was an
alteration of' conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen.
(3) that the alteration of conditions of service was made not
when notice under s. gA of the Industrial Disputes Act was given
but on December r6, when the rationalisation scheme was put
into operation, and that as it was done when the reference was
pending before the Tribunal, it wa~ a contravention of s. 33 of
the Act.
(4) that the closure of the mills in the circumstances of this
case by the employer amounted to an illegal lock-out and that
the workmen unable to work in consequence of the lock-out were
entitled to wages for the period of absence caused by such
lock-out.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 141 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
July 19, 1958, of the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West
Bengal, in Case No. VIII-240 (166)/57.
0. K. Daphtary, Soli.citor-General of India, Vidya
Sagar and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants.
P. K. Sanyal and P. K. Ohakravarty for R. 0.
Datta, for the respondents.
1960. March 23. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Nor th Brook f utd
Co. Ltd.
v.
Their Workmen
\
DAS GUPTA, J.-On December 13, 1957, the GovernDas Gupta J.
ment of West Bengal referred under s. 10 of the
Industrial Disputes' Act the following dispute between
M/s. Northbrook Jute Co., Ltd., and Dalhousie Jute
Mills who are appellants before us and,their workmen:-.
North Brook jute
Co. Ltd.
v.
Their Workmen
Das Gt~pta J.
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
"Do the proposals of rationalisation in the above
two mills involve any increase in workload ? If so,
what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
Almost a month before this the proposal of introducing a rationalisation scheme in the mills of these
companies had been considered at an extraordinary
meeting of the Works Committee and the Committee
had agreed to the proposal. A notice under s. 9A of
the Industrial Disputes Act was then given by the companies to the Unions of their workmen and it was
because the workmen objected to the introduction of
the rationalisation scheme that the dispute arose and
was referred by the Government to the Tribunal. On
December 16 when the above reference was pending
before the Tribunal the management of these mills
put the rationalisation scheme into operation but the
workmen refused to do the additional work placed on
them by the scheme. Later the same day the mills
declared a lock-out.
Work was however resumed
again in all departments excepting the weaving and
finishing departments on December 20, and in these
two departments on December 21, as a result of a
settlement arrived at between the workmen represented by their Unions and rthe Mills as regards the
introduction of the rationalisation scheme.
But a
dispute arose as regards the payment of wages to
workmen for their dues during the period when the
mills were closed, viz., 16th December to 20th December in the weaving and finishing departments and 16th
December to 19th December in all other departments.
This dispute was also referred to the Tribunal by an
order of the Government dated February 1, 1958.
The earlier issue as regards the proposed introduction
of the rationalisation scheme was also amended in
view of what had happened in the meantime by substituting therefor :-"Have the rationalisation effected,
in the above two mills since 16th December, 1957,
involved any increase in the workload?
To what
relief the workers are entitled to?" We are no longer
concerned with this issue as the decision of the Tribunal thereon which is against the workmen is no
longer disputed.
As regards the other two disputes
the Tribunal has made an award in favour of the
• •
...
,,
• -
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
367
workmen that they are entitled to wages for the
period of absence above-mentioned.
On this question the workmen's case before the
Tribunal was that the reason that workmen could not
do any work on the days in question was the illegal
lock-out by the employers; the employer's case was
that the workmen had struck work illegally, and so,
the closure of the mills on the 16th of December after
such strike was not illegal or unjustified. The Tribunal
was of opinion that the employer's attempt to put the
rationalisation scheme into effect on the 16th December was a contravention of s. 33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, and so, the workmen's refusal to work
in accordance with that scheme was not an illegal
strike and the employer's closure of the mills was
illegal.
Learned counsel for the employer-mills has tried to
convince tis that they had acted in accordance with
law, in introducing the rationalisation scheme on the
16th December.
He pointed out that the Works
Committee duly constituted under the Act had considered the scheme and approved of it, and argued that
as the workmen's representatives on the Works
Committee had agreed to the scheme, the workmen
themselves should be taken to have agreed to it. That
the workmen's representatives on the Works Committee agreed to the introduction of the scheme by
the companies" whenever they desired" is established
by a copy of the resolution of the Works Committee.
It has to be noticed however that the workmen's representatives on the Works Committee do not represent
the workmen for all purposes, but .only -for the
purpose of the functions of the Works Committee.
Section 3(2) of the Act sets out the functions of the
Works Committee in these words :
" It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to
promote measures for securing and preserving
amity and good relations between the employer and
workmen' and, to that end to comment upon matters
of their common interest or concern and endeavour
to compose any material difference of opinion in
respect of such matters."
North Brook Jute
Co. Ltd.
v.
Their Workmen
Das Gupta j.
North Brook ] ute
Co. Ltd.
v.
Theif' Workmen
Das Gupta].
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
The language used by the Legislature makes it clear
that the Works Committee was not intended to supplant
or supersede the Unions for the purpose of collective
bargaining; they are not authorised to consider real
or substantial changes in the conditions of service;
their task is only to smooth away frictions that might
arise between the workmen and the management in
day-to-day work.
By no stretch of imagination can
it be said that the duties and functions of the Works
Committee included the decision on such an important
matter as the alteration in the conditions of service
by rationalisation. "To promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between
the employer and workmen " is their real function
and to that end they are authorised to " comment
upon matters of their common concern or interest and
endeavour to compose any material difference of
opinion in respect of such matters." The question of
introduction of rationalisation scheme may be said to
be a matter of common interest between the employers and workmen; but the duty and authority of
the Works Committee could not extend to anything
more than making comments thereupon and to endeavour to compose any ma.terial difference of opinion in
respect of such matters.
Neither " comments" nor
the "endeavour" could be held to extend to decide
the question on which differences have arisen or are
likely one way or the other. It was rightly pointed
out by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Kemp and
Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen(') that:
"the Works Committees are normally concerned
with problems arising in the day to day working of
the concern and the functions of the Works Committee are to ascertain the grievances of the employees
and when occasion arises to arrive at some agreement
also. But the function and the responsibility of the
works committee as their very nomenclature indicates cannot go beyond recommendation and as such
they are more or less bodies who in the first instance
endeavour to compose the differences and the final
decision rests with the union as a whole."
The fact tlrnt the workmen's representatives on the
Works Committee agreed to the introduction of the
(I) (1955] I L,L.J. 48,
.....
•
-
..
... ..
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
369
rationalisation scheme is therefore in no. way binding
on the workmen or their Union.
The next argument was that whatever alteration
was effected in the conditions of service, was made,
on the date when notice under s. 9A was given and
that being before the 13th December there was no contravention of s. 33. .There is in our opinion no substance in this contention, Section 9A in accordance
with which the notice was given provides that "No
employer who proposes to effect any change in the
conditions of service applicable to any workmen in
respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule,
shall effect such change_
(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be
affected by such a notice in the prescribed manner of
the nature of the change proppsed to be effected; or
(b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice;".
With the proviso to the section we are not concerned.
What is important to notice is that in making this
provision for notice the Legislature was clearly contemplating three stages. The first stage is the proposal
by the employer to effect a change; the next stage is
when he gives a notice and the last stage is when he
effects the change in the conditions of service on the
expiry of 21 days from the date of the notice. The
conditions of service do not stand changed, either
when the proposal is made or the notice is given but
only when the change is actually effected. That
actual change takes place when the new conditions of
service are actually introduced.
It necessarily follows that in deciding for the purpose
of s. 33 of the Act, at what point of time the employer
"alters" any conditions of service, we have to ascertain the time when the change of which notice under
s. 9A is given is actually effected. If at the time the
change is effected, a proceeding is pending before a
Tribunal, s. 33 is attracted and not otherwise. The
point of time when the employer proposes to change
the conditions of service and the point of time when
the notic~ is given are equally irrelevant.
It was further contended that in any case, the alteration was not to the prejudice of the workmen. How
such a contention can be seriously made is difficult to
North Brook jute
Co. Ltd.
v.
Their Workmen
Das Gupta ] .
•
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
r960
understand. The whole basis of the scheme was so to
N
--
allocate the machines to workmen, as to enable fewer
orth Brook jute
k
k th
h'
h
h
b
co. Ltd
wor men to wor
e mac mes t an t e num er prev.
·
viously required so that surplus workmen could be
Their Workmen discharged. The object was to decrease the cost of
production. The method adopted for attaining the
Das Gupta J · object was to obtain more work from the workmen for
approximately. the same wages. However laudable the
object be, it cannot be doubted for a moment that the
scheme prejudiced the workmen seriously. Mr. Fraser,
the company's witness, stated in his evidence that
while previously for every machine in the batching
department, there were two hands, now there are two
hands for two machines. In giving the reasons for
the introduction of the scheme, he said "we had surplus
labour in both the mills.
The company was losing
heavily. Till then we depended on natural wastage
and did not think of rationalisation; in November
last year, the decision was taken to take action on
rationalisation. "
Rationalisation which was introduced had therefore
two effects-first that some workers would become
surplus and would face discharge ; and secondly, the
other workmen would have to carry more workload.
The introduction of the rationalisation scheme was
therefore clearly an alteration of conditions of service
to the prejudice of the workmen.
The alteration was made on the 16th December,
when reference as regards the scheme had already been
made and was pending before the Industrial Tribunal.
The Tribunal has therefore rightly held that this introduction was a contravention of s. 33.
Lastly it was contended that even if the introduction of the rationalisation scheme was a contravention
of s. 33 the workmen's remedy lay in applying under
s. 33A, and that they were not entitled to strike work.
Section 33A no doubt gives the workmen aggrieved by
the contravention by the employer of s. 33 to apply to
the Tribunal for relief; but the existence of this
remedy does not mean that the workmen were bound
to work under t'3.e altered conditions of service, even
though these were in clear contravention of law. When
they refused to do the additional work which the
·-
•
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
371
rationalisation scheme required them to do, they refused to do work, which the employer had no right in
law to ask them to do. It is difficult to say that ·this
amounted to a "strike" by the workmen ; but even
if it could be said to be a " strike " such strike was
certainly not illegal or unjustified.
Our conclusion therefore is that the Tribunal was
right in its opinion that the closure of the mills by the
employer amounted to an illegal lock-out, and the
workmen, unable to work 'in consequence of the lockout, are entitled to wages for the period of absence,
caused. by such lock-out.
The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
MANAGEMENT OF KAIRBETTA ESTATE,
KOTAGIRI
v.
RAJ AMANICKAM AND OTHERS.
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. 0. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
I ndu.strial Dispute-Lay-off compensation-Closure of division
due to disturbances by workers-Lock-out-Subsequent reopening of
division-Claim for lay-off compensation-Lock-out and lay-off,
Distinction-Industrial Disputes Act, z947-(I4 of z947), ss. 2(l),
2 (kkk), 25C, 25E(iii), 33C.
The appellant's manager was violently attacked by its
workmen as a result of which he sustained serious injuries.
The workers in the lower division also threatened the appellant's
staff working in that division that they would murder them if
they worked there. The appellant was therefore compelled to
notify that the division would be closed until further notice.
Subsequently as a result of conciliation before the labour officer,
the division was opened again. The workers made a claim for
lay-off compensation under s. 25C of the Industrial Disputes
Act, r947, for the period during which the lower division was
closed on the footing that :the management for their own
reasons did not choose to run the division during that period.
The appellant's answer was, inter alia, that the closure of the
division amounted to a lock-out which under the circumstances
was perfectly justified and as such the workers were not entitled
to claim any lay-off compensation :
Held; (r) that the concept of a lock-out is essentially
different from that of a lay-off and where the closure of business
amounts to a lock-out under s. 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
Nor th Brook ] ute
Co. Ltd.
v.
Their Workmen
Das G"pta ].
March z4.