# BUCKINGHAM AND CARNA'l1IC CO. L'l'D v. • WORKERS OF THE BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC CO. L'l'D

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 219
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951-06-27
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1952
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan, Das, Bhagwati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/buckingham-and-carna-l1ic-co-l-l-d-v-workers-of-the-buckingham-and-carnatic-co-125
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Indian Factories Act (XXV of 1934), s. 49·B-Indttstrial
. Disputes Act ( XIY of 1947 ), s. 2 ( q)-Eniployees stopping work for
a few hours by concerted action-Whether "strilce"-Continuity of
service, whether interrupted-Loss of right to holidays with pay.
Where the night-shift operatives of a department of a textile
mills stopped work from about 4 p.m. up to about 8 p.m. on a
certain day, the apparent cause of the strike heing that the management of the mills had expressed its· inability to comply with the
requ"est of the workers to declare the forenoon of that day as a
holiday for solar eclipse, and it was found that the stoppage of
work was the result of concerted action:
Held (i) that the stoppage of work fell within the definition of
a "strike" in s. 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
(ii) that the strike was an illegal strike as the textile mills
was a public utility industry and no notice had been given t9 the
management, even though the refusal to work continued only for
ii. few hours ; and
(iii) that the continuity of service of the workers was interrupted by this illegal strike and they were not entitled to claim
holidays with pay under s. 49-B (1) of the Indian Factories Act,
1934.
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 89 of 1952. Appeal by special leave from the
Judgment dated June 27, 1951, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta in Appeals Nos. 94
and 142 o.f 1950 arising out of the Award of the
Second Industrial Tribunal, Madras (published in the
Fort St. George Gazette, Madras, dated October 3,
1950).
N. 0. Ohatter;'ee (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for
the appellant.
S. 0. 0. Anthoni Pillai (President, Madras Labour
Union) for the respondents.
1952.
December 2.
The Judgment of the Co-qry
was qelivered by MAHAJAN J,
Dec
~.
1952
Bueki1igham
and Oarn.atic
Co. Ltd.
v.
Workers of the
Buckingham
and Garnatic
Co. Ltd.
MahajanJ.
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953)
MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal by special leave
from a decision dated 27th June, 1951, of the I.Jabour
Ap~ellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta in appeals
Nos. 94 and 142 of 1950, arising out of the award of
the Second Industrial Tribunal, Madras.
The relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to
the appeal are as follows:
On 1st November, 1948,
859 'night shift operatives of the carding and spinning
department of the Carnatic Mills stopped work, some
at 4 p.m., some at 4-30 p.m., and some at 5 p.m. The
stoppage ended at 8 p.m. in both the departments. By
10 p.m. the strike ended completely.
The apparent
cause for the strike was that the management of the
Mills had expressed its inability to comply with the
request of the workers to declare the forenoon of·the
1st November, 1948, as a holiday for solar eclipse.
On thi;l 3rd November, 1948, the management put up
a notice that the stoppage of work on the 1st N ovember amounted to an illegal strike and a break in service within the meaning of the Factories Act (XXV of
1934) and that the management had decided that the
workers who had participated in the said strike would
not be entitled to holidays with pay as provided by the
Act. Tb is position was not accepted by the Madras
Labour Union. The Madras Government by an order
dated the 11th July, 1949, made under section 10(1)
(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947),
referred this dispute along with certain other disputes
to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The adjudicator
gave the award which was published in the Gazette on
12th October, 1950.
By his award the adjudicator
found that there could be little doubt that the stoppage of work by the night shift workers on the night
of tbe 1st November, 1948, was a strike, that it was an
illegal strike, since the textile industry is notified as a
public utility industry and there could be no legal strike
without a proper issue of notice in the terms prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act. No such notice
had been given. In view of this finding he upheld
the view of the management that

## Text

..
~ -
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
219
BUCKINGHAM AND CARNA'l1IC CO. L'l'D.
1952
v.
•
WORKERS OF THE BUCKINGHAM AND
CARNATIC CO. L'l'D.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAGWATI JJ.}
Indian Factories Act (XXV of 1934), s. 49·B-Indttstrial
. Disputes Act ( XIY of 1947 ), s. 2 ( q)-Eniployees stopping work for
a few hours by concerted action-Whether "strilce"-Continuity of
service, whether interrupted-Loss of right to holidays with pay.
Where the night-shift operatives of a department of a textile
mills stopped work from about 4 p.m. up to about 8 p.m. on a
certain day, the apparent cause of the strike heing that the management of the mills had expressed its· inability to comply with the
requ"est of the workers to declare the forenoon of that day as a
holiday for solar eclipse, and it was found that the stoppage of
work was the result of concerted action:
Held (i) that the stoppage of work fell within the definition of
a "strike" in s. 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
(ii) that the strike was an illegal strike as the textile mills
was a public utility industry and no notice had been given t9 the
management, even though the refusal to work continued only for
ii. few hours ; and
(iii) that the continuity of service of the workers was interrupted by this illegal strike and they were not entitled to claim
holidays with pay under s. 49-B (1) of the Indian Factories Act,
1934.
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 89 of 1952. Appeal by special leave from the
Judgment dated June 27, 1951, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta in Appeals Nos. 94
and 142 o.f 1950 arising out of the Award of the
Second Industrial Tribunal, Madras (published in the
Fort St. George Gazette, Madras, dated October 3,
1950).
N. 0. Ohatter;'ee (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for
the appellant.
S. 0. 0. Anthoni Pillai (President, Madras Labour
Union) for the respondents.
1952.
December 2.
The Judgment of the Co-qry
was qelivered by MAHAJAN J,
Dec
~.
1952
Bueki1igham
and Oarn.atic
Co. Ltd.
v.
Workers of the
Buckingham
and Garnatic
Co. Ltd.
MahajanJ.
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953)
MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal by special leave
from a decision dated 27th June, 1951, of the I.Jabour
Ap~ellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta in appeals
Nos. 94 and 142 of 1950, arising out of the award of
the Second Industrial Tribunal, Madras.
The relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to
the appeal are as follows:
On 1st November, 1948,
859 'night shift operatives of the carding and spinning
department of the Carnatic Mills stopped work, some
at 4 p.m., some at 4-30 p.m., and some at 5 p.m. The
stoppage ended at 8 p.m. in both the departments. By
10 p.m. the strike ended completely.
The apparent
cause for the strike was that the management of the
Mills had expressed its inability to comply with the
request of the workers to declare the forenoon of·the
1st November, 1948, as a holiday for solar eclipse.
On thi;l 3rd November, 1948, the management put up
a notice that the stoppage of work on the 1st N ovember amounted to an illegal strike and a break in service within the meaning of the Factories Act (XXV of
1934) and that the management had decided that the
workers who had participated in the said strike would
not be entitled to holidays with pay as provided by the
Act. Tb is position was not accepted by the Madras
Labour Union. The Madras Government by an order
dated the 11th July, 1949, made under section 10(1)
(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947),
referred this dispute along with certain other disputes
to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The adjudicator
gave the award which was published in the Gazette on
12th October, 1950.
By his award the adjudicator
found that there could be little doubt that the stoppage of work by the night shift workers on the night
of tbe 1st November, 1948, was a strike, that it was an
illegal strike, since the textile industry is notified as a
public utility industry and there could be no legal strike
without a proper issue of notice in the terms prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act. No such notice
had been given. In view of this finding he upheld
the view of the management that the continuity of
service of the workers Wf!S bro!>en by the interruption
y
'
.. -
\
-
S.C.R.
-SUPREME - COURT REPORTS
221 ·
caused by the illegal strike and that as a cornrnq uence
the workers. who participated in such strike were not
entitled to annual holidays with pay _under section
49-B ( 1) of the Factories Act.
He, however, CQnsidered that the total deprivation of leave with pay
ordered by the management was a severe punishment
and on the assumption that he had power to scrutinize
the exercise of the discreti0n by the manageme~t in
awarding punishment, reduced the punishment by 50
pet cent. and held that the workers would be deprived
of only half their holidays with pay.
The decision of
the management was varied to this extent.
The Mills as well as the Union appealed against this
decision to the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
That
Tribunal upheld the contention of the Mills that the
adjudjcator had no power to interfere with and revise
the discretion of the management exercised by it under
section 49-B (1).
It also upheld the contention of
the Union that what happened on the night of the
L;t November did not amount to a strike and did not
cause any interruption in the workers' service.
rrhis
i~ wh.at the Tribunal said:-
,, It wonld be absurd to hold that non-permitted
absence from work even for half an hour or less in the
course of a working day would be regarded as interruption of service of a workman for the purpose of
the said section.
\Ve are inclined to hold that the
stoppage of work for the period for about 2 to 4 hours
in the circumstances of the case is not to be regarded
as a strike so as to amount to ·a break in the continuity
of service of the workman concerned."
In the result the appeal of the Union on this point
was allowed and it was ordered that holidays at full
rates as provided for in section 49-A of the Factories
Act will have to be calculated in respect of the operatives concerned on the footing that there was no break
in the continuity of their service by the stoppage of
work on 1st November, 1948.
In this appeal it was contended on behalf of the
Mills that on a proper construction of section 49-B ( l)
1952
Buckingham
anrl Cru· na.tic
Go. Ltd.
Workers of the
Buckingha1n
and Carnat-io
Go. Ltd.
Jlahajan J.
1952
Buckingham
and Carnatic
Co. Ltd.
v.
Workers of the
Buckingham
and Carnat1c
Go. Ltd.
Mahajan J.
222
SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS
(1953]
of the Factories Act (XXV of 1934) the management was right in its decision that the continuity of
service was broken by the interruption caused by the
illeg;;tl strike and that the workers were not entitled
to annual holidays. with pay uudQr the said section
inasmuch as they would not have completed a period
of twelve months' continuous service in the factory,
and that the non- permitted absence as a result of
concerted refusal to work even for 2 to 4 hours in the
course of a working day amounts to an illegal strike
and consequently an interruption of service of a workman for the purpose of section 49-B.
In onr judgment, this contention is well founded.
Section 49-B provides-
"Every worker who has completed a period of
twelve months continuous service in a factory shall be
allowed, during the subsequent period of twelve
months, holidays for a period of ten, or, if a child,
fourteen consecutive days, inclusive of the day or days,
if any, on which he is entitled to a holiday under subsection (l) of section 35 .......... ".
"Explanation.-A worker shall be deemed to have
completed a period of twelve months continuous service in a factory notwithstanding any interruption in
service during those twelve months brought about by
sickness, accident or authorized leave not exceeding
ninety days in the aggregate for all three or by a
lockout, or by a strike which is not an illegal strike, or
by intermittent periods of involuntary unemployment
not exceeding thirty days ...................... "
It is clear that the benefit of this section is not available in cases where the interruption in service is
brought about by an illegal strike.
Section 2 ( q) of
the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947)
defines "strike" as meaning_
"a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a
concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of an~ number of persons who are or hiwe
;
/o -
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
223
been so employed to continue to work or to accept
employment."
The adjudicator found on the evidence and circw.mstances of the case that there was concert and combination of the workers in stopping and refusing to
resume work on the night of the 1st November.
He observed that the fact that a very large number of
leave applications was put in for various re·asons
pointed to the concerted action and that the application. given by the workers and their representatives also indicated that they were acting in combination both in striking and refusing to go back to
work on the ground that they were entitled to leave
for the night shift whenever a half a day's leave
was granted to the day shift workers.
He further
held that the refusal of the workers to resume work
in spite of the attempts made by the officers and their
own Madras Labour Union representatives indicated
that they were not as a body prepared to resume work
unless their demand was conceded.
In our. opinion, the conclusion reached by the
adjudicator was clearly right and the conclusion cannot be a.voided that the workers were acting in concert.
That being so, the action of the workers on the night of
the 1st November clearly fell within the definition of
the expression "strike" in section 2( q) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
We have not been able to appreciate
the view expressed by the Appellate Tribunal that
stoppage of work for a period of two to four hours
and such non-permitted absence from work cannot be
regarded as strike. Before the adjudicator the only
point raised by the Union was that it was a spontaneous and lightning strike but it was not said by
them that stoppage of work did not fall within the
definition of "strike" as given in the Act. It cannot
be disputed that there was a cessation of work by a
body of persons employed in the Mills and that they
were acting in combination and their refusal to go
back to work was concerted. All the necessary ingredients, therefore, of the definition exist in the present case and the stoppage of work on 1st November,
Buckitiaha11i
rMd Garnatic
Go. Lt1.
v,
Workers of the
Buckinghani
and Garnatic
Go. Ltd.
Mnhajm J.
224
SUPREME CODR'l' ltEPOR'.t'S
(1953)
1952
1948, amounted to a strike.
It was not a case of an
individual worker's failure to turn up for work. It
Iluckin,ghn1n
d
·
h
f 1
b
and carnatic
wa~ a concerte act10n on t e part o a arge num er
co. Ltd.
of workers.
The Appellate Tribunal was thus in error
v
in not regarding it as a strike and it had no discretion
Workers of the not to regard what in law was a strike as not amountBl!ckingham ing to a strikff. If it cannot be denied that the stopand Carnat.c page• of work on 1st November, 1948, amounted to a.
Co. Ltd.
strike, then it was certainly an illega 1 strike because
Mahajan J. no notice had been given ·to the management, the
Mills being a public utility industry.
It was contended by the President of the Union,
who argued the case on behalf of the workers, that
the Factories Act had no application to this case,
because by a notification of the Government of Madras
dated 23rd August, 1946, the Buckingham and
Carnatic Mills had been exempted from the provisions
of Chapter IV-A of the Act and ~he provisions of
sections 49-A and 49-B were not therefore attracted
to it and that no substantial question of law in respect
to the construction of the section fell to be decided
by this Court and that being so, this Court should
not entertain this appeal ·under article 136 of the
Constitution.
'!.'his contention has no validity. '!'he
Mills were granted exemption from the provisions of
Chapter IV-A of the Factories Act because thei1·
leave rules were in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter IV-A of the Factories Act.
These rules
being in similar terms, the decision of the matter
depends on the construction of the rules and this involves a substantial question of law.
Reliance was next placed on section 49-A of the
Factories Act which provides that the provisions of
the new Act would not operate to the prejudice of any
rights which the workers were entitled to under the
earlier rules and it was argued that under the leave
rules of the Mills which prevailed pl'ior to the coming into force of the Factories Act, the workers were
entitled to privilege leave and there was no provision
in those rules similar to the one that has been made
in section 49-B or in the new rules and that the Mills
•
'
' -
' '
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR'rs
225
had no right to deprive them of leave by reason of
the strike.
This contention cannot be sustained
because section 49-A (2) of the Factories Act pas n'o
application to the case of the Carnatic Mills in view
of the notification dated 23rd August, 1946.
Lastly, it was urged that the stoppage of .work on
1st November, 1948, was not a concerted action on
.the part of the workers and that several workers in
their own individual capacity wanted leave on that
date. In our opinion, in view of the facts and circumstances detailed in the adjudicator's award this contention cannot be seriously considered.
We concur
in the view of the facts taken by the adjudica.tor that
the action of the 859 workers on the night of 1st
November, 1948, fell within the definition of the
word "strike" as given in section 2(q) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and it waR an illegal strike and the
workers thus lost the benefit of holidays that they
would have otherwise got under the rules.
'rhe learned counsel for the appellant undertook on
behalf of the management ex gratia that it would condone the default of the workers on lst N overnber, 1948,
and the cessation of work on that night would not be
treated as depriving them of the holidays under the
rules and we appreciate the spirit in which this undertaking was given and hope that the workers would
also take it in that spirit.
The result is that the appeal is allowed, and the
decision of the Labour Appellate Triburial on this
point is Ret aside.
In the circumstances of this case
we make no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellant: 8. P. Vannri.
1952
B ucliingl; am
and Carnatic
Co. Ltd.
v.
TVorlcers of th~
B"c!cingham
and Carnatic
Co. Ltd.