# THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANDRAMALAI ESTATE, ERNAKULAM v. ITS WORKMEN AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 451
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958-12-09
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. W Anchoo, K. c. DAS GUPTA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-management-of-chandramalai-estate-ernakulam-v-its-workmen-and-another-1718
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Failure of conciliation-Union to take
prroper and. reasonable course before calling a strike.
The management having refused to comply. with some of the
demands raised by workmen, the matter was referred for conciliation. Efforts at conciliation failed on November 30, 1955· On
the very next day the unionfgave:a strike.notice and actually went
on strike with effect from December 9, 1958. On January 3,
1956, the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and the strike was called off on January 5, 1956. The
question as to whether the workmen were entitled to get wages
for the period of the strike was along with some ofher grounds
referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that both
the parties were to blame for the strike and that the workmen
~ere entitled to get 50% of the emoluments for the period of
strike:
Held, that on the facts of the case the strike was unjustified
and that the workmen were not entitled ·to any wages for the
period.
When conciliation attempts failed it was reasonable for the
union to take the normal and reasonable course provided by law
to settle the dispute by asking :the Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal before it decided to strike.
A strike which is a legitimate weapon in the hands of the workmen would not be ordinarily justified· if hastily resorted to
without exhausting reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement
of the object.

## Text

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
451
THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANDRAMALAI
ESTATE, ERNAKULAM
v.
ITS WORKMEN AND ANOTHER.
( P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,,K. N. W ANCHOO and
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ. )
Industrial Dispute-Failure of conciliation-Union to take
prroper and. reasonable course before calling a strike.
The management having refused to comply. with some of the
demands raised by workmen, the matter was referred for conciliation. Efforts at conciliation failed on November 30, 1955· On
the very next day the unionfgave:a strike.notice and actually went
on strike with effect from December 9, 1958. On January 3,
1956, the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and the strike was called off on January 5, 1956. The
question as to whether the workmen were entitled to get wages
for the period of the strike was along with some ofher grounds
referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that both
the parties were to blame for the strike and that the workmen
~ere entitled to get 50% of the emoluments for the period of
strike:
Held, that on the facts of the case the strike was unjustified
and that the workmen were not entitled ·to any wages for the
period.
When conciliation attempts failed it was reasonable for the
union to take the normal and reasonable course provided by law
to settle the dispute by asking :the Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal before it decided to strike.
A strike which is a legitimate weapon in the hands of the workmen would not be ordinarily justified· if hastily resorted to
without exhausting reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement
of the object.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 347/1959.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
October 17, 1957, of the Industrial Tribunal No. II,
Ernakulam, in Industrial Disputt:i No. 63 of 1956.
S. Govind Swaminadhan and P. Ram Reddy, for
the appellant.
.
Jacob A. Chakramakal and K. Sundararajan, for
respondent No. 1.
K. R. Ghoudhry, for respondent No. 2.
1960. April 4.
The Judgment of. the Court . wa;s
delivered by
April 4.
Jtf anagement of
Chandranialai
Estate,
Ernakulam
v.
Its Workmen
Das Gupta ].
452
SUPREME COURT R~JPORTS
(1960)
DAS GUPTA, J.-On August 9, 1955, the Union of
the workmen of the Chandramalai Estate submitted
to the Manager of the Estate a memorandum containing fifteen demands. Though the management agreed
to fulfil some of the demands the principal demands
remained unsatisfied. On August 29, 1955, the Labour
Officer, Trichur, who had in the meantime been "'P·
prised of the position by both the management of the
Estate as well as the Labour Union advised mutual
negotiations between the representatives of the management and workers. Ultimately the matter was
recommended by the Labour Officer to the Conciliation
Officer, Trichur, for conciliation. The Conciliation
Officer's efforts proved in vain. The last meeting for
Conciliation appears to have been held on November
30, 1955. On the following day the Union gave a
strike notil:le and the workmen went on a strike with
effect from December 9, 1955. The strike ended on
January 5, 1956. Prior to this, on January 5, the
Government had referred the dispute as regards five
of the demands for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal, Trivandrum. Thereafter by an order dated
June 11, 1956, the dispute was withdrawn from the
Trivandrum Tribunal and referred to the Industrial
Tribunal, Ernakulam. By its award dated October
17, 1957, the Tribunal granted the workmen's demands
on all these issues. The present appeal has been
preferred by the management of the Chandramalai
Estate against the Tribunal's award on three of these
issues. ·These three issues are stated in the reference
thus:
" 1.
W .as the price realised by the management for
the rice 8uld to Lhe workers after decontrol excessive;
and if so, are the workers entitled to get refund of the
excessive value so collected?
•
2.
Are the workers entitled to get cumbly allowance
with retrospective effect from the date it was stopped
and what should be the rate of such allowance?
3.
Are the workers entitled to get wages for the
period of the strike ? "
On the first issue the workmen's case was that
after the control on rice was lifted by the TravancoreCochin Government in April, 1954, the iuanagement
-
t
..
>
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
453
which continued to sell rice to the workmen, charged
at the excessive rate of 12 annas per measure for -rice
bought in excess of a quota for l t measure per
head. This according to the workmen was improper
and unjustified and they claimed refund of the excess
which they have been made to pay. The manage.
ment's case was that the workmen were not bound to
·buy rice from the Estate's management and secondly,
that only the actual cost price and not any excess
had been charged. The tribunal held on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence that the
management b,ad charged more than the cost price
and held that they were b<flind to refund the same. ·
The second issue was in respect of a claim for
cumbly allowance. Charidramalai Tea Estate is situated at a high altitude. It is not disputed that it had
been customary for the Estates in this region to pay
blanket allowance to workmen to enable them to
furnish themselves with blankets to meet the rigours
of the weather and that it had really ,become a part
of the terms and conditions of· service. But in spite
of it the management of this Estate stopped payment
of the allowance from 1949 onwards and resumed
payment only in 1954. The management's defence
was that any dispute not having been raised about
this till August 9, 1955, there was no reason for raising
it at this late stage. The Tribunal rejected this contention and awarded cumbly allowance of Rs. 39 per
workman-made up of Rs. 7 per year for the years
1949, 1950 and 1951 and Rs. 9 per year for the years
1952 and 1953.
On the third issue while the workmen pleaded that
the strike was justified the management contended that
it was illegal and unjustified. The Tribunal held that
bot~ parties were to blame for the strike and ordered
the management to pay workers 50% of their total
emoluments for the strike period.
On the question of excess price of rice having been
collected the appellant's conten.tion before us is limited
to the question of fact, whether the Tribunal was right
in its conclusion that more than cost price was realised.
The Tribunal has based its conclusion as regards the
price realised by the management on entries made in
58
Jfana gement of
Ch•ndramalai
Estate,
Etnakulam
v
Its Workmen
Das Gupta j.
Management oj
Chandramalaf
Estate,
Ef'nakulam
v.
Its Wor~men
Das Gupta].
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
[1960]
the management's own documents. As regards what
such rice cost the management it held that for the
months of April, July and August and September the
price was shown by the management's documents while
for May and June these documents did not disclose the
price. For these two months the Tribunal held the
market price of 'rice as proved by the workers'
witness No. 6 to have been the price at which the
Estate's management procured their rice.
We are
unable to see anything that would justify us in interfering with these conclusions of facts.
Indeed the
documents on which the Tribunal has based its conclusions were not even ma'1e part of the Paper-Book
so that even if we had wanted to consider this question
ourselves it would be impossible for us to do so.
We
are satisfied that the Tribunal was right in its conclusions as regards the cost price of rice to the management and the price actually realised by the management
from workmen. The management's case that the
workmen were. charged only the cost price of rice has
rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. The fact that
workmen were not compelled to purchase rice from the
management is hardly material; the management had
opened the shop to help the workmen and if it is found
that it charged excess rates, in fairness, the workmen
must be reimbursed. The award in so far as it directed
refund of the excess amount collected on the basis of
the figures found by the Tribunal cannot therefore be
successfully challenged.
On the question of the cumbly allowance it is important to note that the only defence raised was that the
demand had been made too late. The admitted fact
that it had been regularly paid year after year for
many years till it was stopped in 1949 is sufficient
to establish the workmen's case that payment pf a
proper cumbly allowance had become a part of their
conditions of service. We do notthinkthat the mere
fact that the workmen did not raise any dispute on
the management's refusal to implement this condition
of service till August 9, 1955, would be a sufficient
reason to refuse them such payment. The management had acted arbitrarily and illegally in stopping
payment of these allowances from 1949 to 1954. They
-
3 s:c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
455
cannot now be heard to say that they should not be ,
asked to pay it merely because the years have already
gone by. It is reasonable to think that even thoug~
the managemept did not pay the allowance the workmen had to provide blankets for themselves at their
own expense. The Tribunal has acted justly in direct-·
ing .payment of the allowances to the workmen for the
years 1949 to 1953. The correctness of the rates
awarded by the Tribunal is not challenged before us.
The Tribunal's award on this issue also is therefore
maintained.
This brings us to the question whether the tribunal
was right in awarding 50% of emoluments to the workmen for the strike period. It is clear that on November 30, 1955, the Union knew that conciliation attempts
had failed. The next step would be a report by the
Conciliation Officer, of such failure to the Government
a·ud it would have been proper and reasonable for the
Union to address the Government at the same time
and request that a reference should be made to the
Industrial Tribunal. The Union however did not
choose to wait and afoer giving notice on December 1,
1955, to the management that it had decided to strike
from December 9, 1955, actually started the strike from
that day. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant
that there was nl}thing in the nature of. the demands
to justify such hasty action and in fairness tho Union
should have taken the normal and reasonable course
provided by law by asking the Government to make a
reference under the Industrial Disputes Act before it
decided to strike. The main demands of the Union
were about the cumbly allowance and the price of
rice.
As regards the cumbly allowance they had said
nothing since 1949 when it was first stopped till the
Union raised it on August 9, 1955.
The grievance for
collection of excess price of rice was niore recent but
even so it was not of such an. urgent nature that the
interests of labour would .have suffered irreparably if
th~ procedure prescribed by law for settlement of such
disputes through industrial tribunals was resorted to.
After all it is not the employer only who suffers if
production is stopped by strikes. · While on the one
M anagemem <1/
Chandramala.i
Estate,
Ernakulaf1!
v.
Management of
Chandramalai
Estate,
Ernakulam
v.
Its TVorkmen
Das Gupt.a f.
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
hand it has to be remembered· that strike is a legitimate and sometimes unavoidable weapon in the hands
of labour it is equally important to remember that
indiscriminate and hasty use of this weapon should
not be encouraged. It will not be right for labour to
think that for any kind of demand a strike can be
commenced with impunity without exhausting reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement of their objects.
There may be cases where the demand is of such an
urgent and serious nature that it would not be reasonable to expect labour to wait till after asking tl).e
Government to make a reference. In such cases, strike
even before such a request has been made may well be
justified. The present is not however one of such
cases. In our opinion the workmen might well have
waited for some time after conciliation efforts failed
before starting a strike and in the meantime to have
asked the Government to make the reference. They
did not wait at all. The conciliation efforts failed on
November 30, 1955, and on the very next day the
Union made its decision on strike and sent the notice
of the intended strike from the 9th December, 1955,
and on the 9th December, 1955, the workmen actually
struck work.
The Government appear to have acted
quickly and referred the dispute on January 3, 1956.
It was after this that the strike was, called off.
W' e
are unable to see how the strike in such circumstances
could be held to be justified.
The Tribunal itself appears to have been in two
minds on the question. Its conclusion appears to be
that the strike though not fully justified, was half
justified and half unjustified ; we fiud it difficult to
appreciate this curious concept of half justification.
In any case, the circumstances of the present case do
not support the conclusion that the strike was justified
·at all.
We are bound to hold in view of the circumstances mentioned above that the Tribunal erred in
holding that the strike was at least partially justified.
The error is so serious that we are bound in the
interests of justice to set aside the decision. There is,
in our view, no escape from the conclusion that the
strike was unjustified and so the workmen are not
entitled to any wages for the strike period.
t
..
'
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
457
We therefore allow the appeal in part and set aside
the award in so far as it directed the payment of 50%
of the total emoluments for the strike period but
maintain the rest of the award. There will be no
order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
ASSAM. OIL COMP ANY ·
v.
ITS WORKMEN
(P. B. GAJENDRJ.GADKAR and K. C. DAs
GUPTA, JJ.)
Industrial Dispu,te-Termination of service in accordance with
contract-If can be qu.estioned before industrial tribunal-Termination on basis of misconduct of workman-If amounts to dismissalNo enquiry-,-Reinstatement if appropriate relief.
One S was employed by the appellant as a secretary and
one_ of.the terms of employment was that the appointment may
be terminated on one month's notice on either side. The appellant was thoroughly dissatisfied with the work of S and disapproved of her conduct in joining the union. Purporting to
act under the contract, the appellant terminated the services of
S and gave her one month's pay in lieu of notice.
No enquiry
was held by the appellant before terminating the services of S.
The industrial tribunal held that the termination of services
amounted to a dismissal for misconduct and since no enquiry
was held it was illegal and unjustified and it passed an order for
the reinstatement of S.
The appellant contended that as the
termination was strictly in accurdance with the terms of the contract it could not be challenged before an \ndustrial tribunal,
that even if no enquiry was held the order of discharge was
justified as the evidence led before the tribunal established the
misconduct of S and that at the highest it was a case for awarding compensation and not for reinstatement:
Held, that the discharge amounted to punishment for alleged
misconduct and was unjustified in the absence of a proper
enquiry. Even where the discharge was in exercise of the power
under the contract it was competent for. the tribunal to enquire
whether the discharge had been effected in the bona fide exercise
of that power. If the tribunal found that the purported exercise of the power was in fact the result of the misconduct alleged
then it would be justified in dealing with the dispute ~m the basis
that the order of discharge was in effect an order of dismissal.
Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal,
8omba)I, [1949] F.C.R. 321, followed ..
Management of
Ckandramalai
Estate,
Ernakulam,
v.
Its Workmen
Das G1<pta ] •
April 'f.·