# THE STATESMAN LTD v. THEIR WORKMEN

- **Citation:** [1976] 3 S.C.R. 228
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-01-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1970
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, A. C. Gupta, N. L. Untwalia. Jj
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-statesman-ltd-v-their-workmen-6757
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Industrial Di.~pule-11/e;taf strike followed b_v lock-out-Lock-out not lifted
despite the workers' conciliatory attitude-Payment of lu1/f wages during strikt~
period-If reasonable.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-When the Court would interfere.
Even when a bonus dispute was pending adjudication before the Industrial
Tribunal, the workn1en of the appellant resorted to rude tactics to press their
earlier charter of demands, which took the turn of an illegal and
disorderly
strike.
The management declared a lockout.
On the day following the declaration of lockout, thei workmen requested the management to lift the lockout
proferring peaceful resumption of work and asking for an interim relief on their
economic demands. · The management did not agree to lift the lockout.
Even·
tually, however, the lockout was lifted and the strike called off.
On the question
of wages during the strike period, the Industrial Tribun<il, apportioning fault
to hoth the p<1rties. directed that the mana_gcmcnt should pay half the wages to
the employees during the strike period.
Dismissin.1?: the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) There is much to be said in favour of the view of the Tribunal
that the blameworthiness may be equally apportioned bet\veen the parties. Where
the strike is illegal and sequel of a lockout legal, the Court has to vie\v the whole
course of developments and not stop with examining the initial legitimacy.
If
one side or other behaves unrea&onably or the overall interests of good industrial
relations warrant the Tribunal making such directions regarding strike period
wa~s as will meet with justice, fairplay and pragmatic v1isdom, there is no error
in doing so.
The power of the Tribunal is flexible.
[236 F; 233 D··E]
India Marine Service, [19~3] 3 SCR 575, followed.
Jn the instant case there \vas a pending industrial dispute when the Unions
sprang a strike notice.
The strike being illegal, the lockout that follo\ved, became a legal, defensive measure. But the management could not behave unreasonably merely because the lockout was born lawfully.
If, by
subsequent
conduct, the Unions had sho\vn readiness to resume work peacefully, the refusal
to restart the industry was not right and the initial legitimacy of the lockout lost
its virtue by this blemished sequel.
f232 G-Hl
(2) In an· appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court would
interfere with the A\vard under challenge only if extraordinary flaws or grave
injusti...-:e· or othet recognised grounds are made out.
[231 E·F]
Bcnf,!a[ Che111ical, [1959] Suppl. 2 SCR 136, 141; and Associated Cen1e11t
Co111pa11ies Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 1552, 1554, followed.
In the instant case the direction of the Tribunal that the Company should
pay tiffin allowance at the rate of 50 paise on working days to thoe. en1ployees in
the staff canteen and that the members of the subordinate staff shoul.9- be supplied with \Vnrm coats did not call for interference.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
228
THE STATESMAN LTD.
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
January 22, 1976
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND N. L. UNTWALIA. JJ.j
Industrial Di.~pule-11/e;taf strike followed b_v lock-out-Lock-out not lifted
despite the workers' conciliatory attitude-Payment of lu1/f wages during strikt~
period-If reasonable.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-When the Court would interfere.
Even when a bonus dispute was pending adjudication before the Industrial
Tribunal, the workn1en of the appellant resorted to rude tactics to press their
earlier charter of demands, which took the turn of an illegal and
disorderly
strike.
The management declared a lockout.
On the day following the declaration of lockout, thei workmen requested the management to lift the lockout
proferring peaceful resumption of work and asking for an interim relief on their
economic demands. · The management did not agree to lift the lockout.
Even·
tually, however, the lockout was lifted and the strike called off.
On the question
of wages during the strike period, the Industrial Tribun<il, apportioning fault
to hoth the p<1rties. directed that the mana_gcmcnt should pay half the wages to
the employees during the strike period.
Dismissin.1?: the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) There is much to be said in favour of the view of the Tribunal
that the blameworthiness may be equally apportioned bet\veen the parties. Where
the strike is illegal and sequel of a lockout legal, the Court has to vie\v the whole
course of developments and not stop with examining the initial legitimacy.
If
one side or other behaves unrea&onably or the overall interests of good industrial
relations warrant the Tribunal making such directions regarding strike period
wa~s as will meet with justice, fairplay and pragmatic v1isdom, there is no error
in doing so.
The power of the Tribunal is flexible.
[236 F; 233 D··E]
India Marine Service, [19~3] 3 SCR 575, followed.
Jn the instant case there \vas a pending industrial dispute when the Unions
sprang a strike notice.
The strike being illegal, the lockout that follo\ved, became a legal, defensive measure. But the management could not behave unreasonably merely because the lockout was born lawfully.
If, by
subsequent
conduct, the Unions had sho\vn readiness to resume work peacefully, the refusal
to restart the industry was not right and the initial legitimacy of the lockout lost
its virtue by this blemished sequel.
f232 G-Hl
(2) In an· appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court would
interfere with the A\vard under challenge only if extraordinary flaws or grave
injusti...-:e· or othet recognised grounds are made out.
[231 E·F]
Bcnf,!a[ Che111ical, [1959] Suppl. 2 SCR 136, 141; and Associated Cen1e11t
Co111pa11ies Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 1552, 1554, followed.
In the instant case the direction of the Tribunal that the Company should
pay tiffin allowance at the rate of 50 paise on working days to thoe. en1ployees in
the staff canteen and that the members of the subordinate staff shoul.9- be supplied with \Vnrm coats did not call for interference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1970.
Appeal by special leave. from the Award dated the 2-9-1969 of
the 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No. 321 of 1967
published in the Calcutta Gazette dated the 16-10-1969.
/"•
..
STATESMAN LTD. v. WORKMEN (Krishna lyer, !.)
S. Chaudhury and D. N. Gupta for the Appellant.
Kapil Sibbal for the R·espondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
229
KRISH~A IYER, J. There is a tragic touch in processual protraction as this little /is lasting a whole decade
pathetically illustrates.
Such lingering legal machinery is by-passed by both sides in practice
largely because, by sheer slow motion, it denies relief when needed
and drives parties to seek remedies by direct action or political intervention.
What elegant alibi can there be for the routine charter of
demands put forward in the middle of 1966, ripening into an industrial reference in Nov0mber 1966 after a flare-up of illegal strike and
failure of conciliation, taking around 3 years for
rendering a short
award and a little over five years for
reviewing it in this Court?
Law-makers whose vocal concern for industrial peace and constitutional promises for th·e working class is being put to the test by failure
in the field will, we hope, alert themselves.
Labour li~ation can be
a course or dread where one side is weak, as here, and has not been
able to hire legal services but has been made good by amicus curiae,
and the oth~r side, regardless of cost, is anxious to settle so1ne principle, as counsel for the appellant impressed on us.
We now move into
the area of facts which wears a jural apparel.
The narrative of necessary facts starts naturally with a bonus dispute in the Statesman Ltd (a newspaper with editions published in
Calcutta and Delhi) which was referred to adjudication in September
1966 and was, admiltedly, pending at a time when the
Calcutta
workers reportedly resorted to rude tactics to press an earlier charter
of demands presented to the management. On September 20, !966,
events reached a crescendo of illegal and disorderly strike at midday
with a reprisal of lock-out at mid-night so soon as the administrative
officer, with police assistance, gained his freedom.
Even in human
affairs a storm is followed by a calm, may be. For, the two Unions,
sobered, perhaps by this sudden action of the management wrote the
very next day (21st September) to the employer requesting for lifting the lock-out, preferring peaceful resumption of work and requiring at least an interim relief on the 'economic' demands.
The letter
speaks for itself and may be read presently. The employer was
not
ready to accept this assurance. The lock-out dragged on, despite the
sc·~ming offer of the olive branch by Labour.
.
Mistrust on both sides .is inevitable when estrangement
vitiates
relations and language is suspect when bitterness is the rule of interpretation.
Right or wrong, the manag0ment took the view that the
offer of good behaviour by the workers was conditional and not convincing, so that the lock-out was not lifted for several days.
The
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who had interceded to
conciliate
had unavailingly requested th~ Management to lift the lock-out and
had found Labour insisting on some interim 'economic' relief as a
ground for withdrawal of the strike.
At certain stages of conflict in
th_is :vorld, fac.e-saving becomes more important than heart-searching.
Life 1s not logic and presl!ge amends propriety.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
The cold-war correspondence continued for a little while more,.
each blaming the other, till at last the State, on November 4, 1966.
referred six points of dispute to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal Calcutta,
before whom the bonus dispute was already pending.
Better sense
on both sides resulted in the termination of the strike and the closure,
and work was resumed from November 8, 1966.
The award
that
followed upon the dispute was rendered on September 2, 1969, nearly
three years after the reference of the dispute.
One is led to wond·or why there should have been so much delay,.
but the blame, if any, has to be shared between the State Government
and the Tribunal.
For, after the Fifth Tribunal started the enquiry
and examined a few witnesses, the State Government ordered transfer
of the industrial dispute to another Tribunal and, not surprisingly,
omitted to communicate promptly the factum of such transfer to the
affected Tribunal.
Thus, although the order of transfer was made on
March 31, 1967 the enquiry continued upto April 22, 1967.
When
actual notice of the transfer was received by the Fifth Tribunal
on
April 24, rep!tsentation was made by it about the enquiry
having
commenced and, naturally, Government re-transferred the dispute to
the same Tribunal.
After this minor episod·o, of transfer
and retransfer, the enquiry was c.ontinued and the award made.
We are now concerned only with three
disputes.
Of the
three
ismos, two deal with petty items like warm coats for the subordinate
staff and canteen allowance for the employees' canteen staff-financially
too negligible to engage the attention of this Court.
The other item,
which is meaty enough to merit our verdict, relates to the wages during the period of work stoppage from September 20, 1966 to November 8, 1966. The Tribunal, considering, in its totality the facts and
circumstances of the case, the share of blame on the part of each
party the role of broad justice in
producing industrial
peace and
advertence to the relevant materials on record, held 'that the
coffir
pany should pay half the wages to the employees during the
period
from September 20 to November 7, 1966.
F
The Management, disappointed by this direction. as we]] as
the
orders regarding warm coats and canteen allowance, has come directly
to this Court securing special kave under Art. 136.
-4
Even though leave has been granted by this Court, the very width
of its power under Art. 136 is a warning against its free-wheeling
exercise save in grave situations. In Bengal Chemical ( 1) Subbarao,
G
J. (as he then was) pointed out that:
H
"The same principle should, therefore, be applied in exercising the power of interference with the awards of tribunals
irrespective of the fact that the question arises at the time of
granting special leave or at the time the appeal is disposed of.
It would be illogical to apply two different standards at two
different stages of the same case.
The same view was expressed by this Court in Pritam Singh v. State
of Madras
(1950 SCR 453), Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer (1954 SCR
-·
(!) [1959] Supp. 2 S. C.R. 136, 141
"
STATESMAN LTD. v. WORKMEN (Krishna Iyer, !.)
231
1153) and Sadhu Singlz v. State of Pepsu (AIR 1954 SC
A
271)".
From this it follows that when awards of Industrial Tribunals
are
challenged in this Court, we have to apply those several tests which
have become part of the self-imposed restraints on its special jurisdiction.
What are these self-created trammels upon the exercise of this
Court's power? The answer is furnished by this Court in the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.(l) Mathew J. followed Bengal Chemiwl (') (both these cases related to industrial awards challenged in
appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution), where this Court had observed :
"Though Art. 136 is couched in widest terms, it is necessary for this Court to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction
only in cases where awards arc
made in violation of the
principles of natural justice causing substantial
and
grave
injustice to parties or raising an important principle of industrial law requiring elucidation and
final
decision by this
Court or disclosing such other exceptional or special circumstances which merit the consideration of this Court."
The learned Judge endorsed the view in these words :
'The portion of the award with which we are concerned
does not raise any important principle of law requiring elucidation and final decision by this Court.
Nor does it disclose any exceptional or special circumstances which merit
decision by this Court. On a question like this, where the
Tribunal. on a consideration of all the materials placed before it and having regard to the overall picture came to a
conclusion. we do not think this Court should interfere."
Circumspection and circumscription must therefore induce us to
interfere with the award under challenge only if extraordinary flaws or
grave injustioe or other recognised grounds are made out. This perspective is sufficient in itself to dispose of the two tiny items of dispute
bearing on warm coats and canteen
allowance.
Even so, we
will
briefly refer to them.
The canteen staff claimed allowance of 50 paise per working day.
There are two canteens, one for officers and the other for the subordinate staff.
While the staff of the Officers' canteen are drawincr the
dietary allowance of 50 paise, the employees of the staff cante~n arc
denied this paltry sum. There is no reasonable basis for this invidious
treatment and we find no ground to interfere. with the Tribunal's direction that 'the company should pay tiffin ·allowance at the rate of 50
paise on working days to the employees in the staff canteen'. Of
course, if they take free food from the canteen they will be indigible
for the allowance since they cannot have both.
Equally untenable is the grievance against warm coats supplied to
the subordinate staff. It is common case that the management does
supply warm coats to Jamadars, gate-darwans and inspectors but does
not extend thi.s._~r_Il1 facility to darwans and delivery peons Calcutta.
(1) Al.l.R. 1972 S. C. 1552, 1554.
16-LJ90 SCl/76
(2) [l 959] Supp. S.C.R. 1'6, t 41
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976) 3 S.C.R.
cold does not spare either category and therefore no climatic distiction
can be made between the two. True it is that in the charter of
demands warm coats were claimod only for
those
employees. who
delivered newspapers.
Even so the dispute referred to the
Tribunal
is in wider terms and we arc satisfied that the award calls for no interference when it states 'that all the members of the subordinate staff
should be supplied with warm coats'. Of course, it need hardly be said
that these employees cannot claim warm jerseys over and above coats.
1 he bone of contention between the parties bears upon the wages
during the strike period. We have already indicated that the award
crystalliZ<'S a discretionary conclusion reached after a survey of all the
facts and animated by a sense of broad justice.
The Tribunal had
something to say against the workers and the management and felt impelled to state :
"J find that both the parties were at fault.
That being
the position I am of opinion that both the parties should be
held responsible for the delay in the matter of the withdrawing of the lock-out.
In these circumstances, I am of
opinion that the company should pay half the wages to the
employees during the period from 20th September 1966 to
7th November 1966."
Captious criticisms apart, the conspectus
of relevant circumstances
more or less bears out the propriety of this direction.
The crucial issue is as to whether we have any material to castigate
this conclusion as unconscionable or unjuristic, involving gross injustice, violating a well-established rule of law or otherwise attracting out
special responsibility to declare the law in a twilit area of public importance to industrial life.
We will examine the pertinent circwnstances from this angle and it will be evident that the more we ponder
the subject the more we are satisfied about the legal soundness and
practical wisdom of the award, having in mind industrial peace as the
goal.
The smouldering dispute between the Management and the workers
apparently burst into flame on September 20, 1966. Going by tl1e
Tribunal's reading of the situation there was a strike that day.
The
pendency of certain types of proceedings before a Tribunal stamps
a
strike or lock-out with illegality (s. 24). Whiles. 23 prohibits strikes
and Jock-outs when proceedings mentioned there are under way, s. 24
(3) absolves a Jock-out of illegality if it is caused by an illegal strike.
There surely was a pending industrial dispute when the Unions sprang
the strike.
Being therefore illegal, the lock-out that followed became
a legal, defensive measure. So far is smooth sailing. But the management cannot behave unreasonably merely because the lock-out is born
lawfully. If by subsequent conduct, imaginatively interpreted,
tl1e
Unions have shown readiness to resume work peacefully, the refusal to
re-start the industry is not right and the initial legitimacy of the lockout loses its virtue by this blemished sequel. Nor can any management expect, as feelings run high, charge-sheets in criminal courts arc
laid against workers and they are otherwise afl!ictcd by the pinch of
•
,_
oTATESMAN LTD. v. WORKMEN (Krishna lyer, !.)
233
unemployment, to get proof of good behaviour beyond their
written
word. Nor can they realistically insist that they abandon their demands
!or better benefits before the lock-out is lifted.
In this hungry "orid
the weaker many cannot afford the luxury of finery in speech wnich the
happier few can afford.
In the rough and tumble of industrial disputes conciliation is a necessary grace the stronger party, the soc1ally
conscious management, must cultivate and huff a fia\v it must csch~w.
In the realistic temper of bargaining between two wings of an ind1.1stryboth managements and workers belong equally to the industry, for if
one owns the other produces-a feeling of partnership must prevail to
persuade the two sides to trust each rather than such to point flaws
in the language used.
Such is the spirit of give and take which must
inform industrial negotiation if peace and production are the bona fide
end and national development the great concern.
This broad philosophical approach amply vindicates the justice of the
Tribunal·s
impugned award.
To appreciate this view, a flash back into the ev-~nts aro"nd and
.after September 20, 1966 is helpful. The backdrop of law may
be
briefly recapitulated before going into factual details.
If the strike is illegal, wages during the period will ordinarily be
negatived unless considerate circumstances constrain a different course.
Likewise if the lock-out is illegal full wages for the closure ixriod
shall have to b~ 'forked out', if one may use that expression. But in
between lies a grey area of twilit law. Strictly speaking, the whole
field is left to the judicious discretion of the Tribunal. Where the
strike is illegal and the sequel of a lock-out legal, we have to view the
whole course of developments and not stop with examining the initial
legitimately. If one side or other behaves unreasonably or the over-all
interests of good industrial relations warrant the Tribunal making such
-directions regarding strike period wages as will meet with justice, !airplay and pragmatic wisdom, there is no error in doing so.
His power
is llexible.
We are heartened and strengthened irr our approach by the decision
in India Marine Service('). There the Court noted that 'the attitude
-0! the company was a reasonable one and that it even proposed to the
u!'ion and through it to its workmen that work should go on, that the
-Oispute should be taken before the Conciliation Officer for conciliation
and that in the meanwhile they were prepared to grant some interim
xelief to the workmen.
'In our opinion', added the Court
"while the strike was unjustifiable, the lock-out when it
was ordered on November 13, 1958, was justified. It seems
to us, however, that though the lock-out was justified at its
commencement its continuance for 53 days was wholly unreasonable and therefore, unjustified. In a case wh2re a
strike is unjustified and is followed by a lock-out which has
because of its long duration. become uniustified it would not
be a proper course for an industrial tribunal to direct th2
payment of the whole of the wages for the period of the
lock-out. We would like to make it clear
that in a case
where the strike is unjustified and the lock-out is justified the
(!) (1963) 2 S.C.R. 575.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976} 3 S.C.R.
workmen would not be entitled to any wages at all. Similarly where the strike is justified and the lock-out is unjustified the workmen would be entilled to the entire wages for
the period of strike and lock-out.
Where, however, a strike
is unjustified and is followed by a lock-out which becomes
unjustified, a cas·o for apportionment of blame
arises.
In
our opinion in the case before us the blame for the situation
which resulted after the strike and the lock-out can be apportioned roughly half and hall between the company and its
workers. In the circumstances we therefore direct that the
workmen should get half their wages from November 14,
1958 to January 3, 1959 (both days inclusiv·e)."
The factual milieu surrounding the strike-lock-out complex,
as
neatly presented by Shri Kapil Sibbal, shows how the flow ol events
exonerated the Unions of serious impropriety and the employer was
trying to be too clever.
When the workers struck, the Management
put up a notice of closure wherein it was stated :
"The stay-in-strike resorted to by the
workmen is unjustified and illegal in view of the pendency of the proceedings bdore the Fifth Industrial Tribunal and also violates
the Code of Discipline.
The representatives of the Unions
were made aware of this fact
when the management met
them to discuss their demands today.
In the circumstances, the 111anagen1ent has no option but
to keep the establishment closed ulllil such time as the work1nen assure the n1anagen1ent of nor1na! and peaceful resun1ptioll of work."
(emphasis, added)
The simple insistence of the Management in the closure notice was an
assurance from the workmen 'of normal and peaceful resumption of
work'.
No sooner was this notice put up than the Unions responded
constructively, moderating the usual tantrums they arc given to in an
atmosphere of conflict. The very next day after the closure, i.e., on
September 21, the Secretary of the Union wrote back a letter wherein
he stated inter alia :
"While we deny the various allegations contained in your
said Notice and hold you wholly liable for the development
on 20-9-66 in suddenly advising your supervisory staff to
stop all processes of work from 12.30 p.111. and creating a
confusion amongst t.he workmen who were working an the
time till then, presumably to prepare a ground for the illegal
Lockout since some days past as peaceful and constitutional
movement of lhe Unions was there to your dislike, we should
tell you here and now that no useful purpose will be served
by such black-mailing Notice far less the cause of the industrial peace and progress of a reputable concern like 'The
Statesman' . ... "
x
x
x
x
"You know more than anybody else that your
are all peace loving people and have cooperated
x
workmen
with you
•
STATESMAN LTD. v. WORKMEN (Krishna Iyer,./.)
~35
all along with respect and
a\1eclion.
You had never any
occasion to find fault with them for any
indisciplined conduct.
Our Unions have also a long tradition of faithiul cooperation with the management in every hour of crisis and
we are proud of our said lofty tradition.
There was no ob-
·struction in tbc movement of
anybody at any stage
on
20--9-66 as alleged or at all aqd the police ought not to have
been invited in the offi_ce. Considering everything: V·le are o[
the opinion that no interest of the management or of the
workmen will. be served by such acrimonious correspondence
and any delay in the settlement of the outstanding disputes
will make the situation more complex.
You are therefore requested to withdraw your aforesaid
Notice, arrange an in1mcdiatc sitting with us and
meet the
genuine grievances of ~he e1nployces, if not in full at least as
:an interim :Jrrangement and note in this context if any assurance is necessary that all along in the past the workmen will
nzaintain peace and work 11or1nally
and
peacefully unless
they are sllf/iciently provoked fnnn your end."
(emphasis, added)
lt is obvious that the tone of this reply is conciliatory and literally conforms to the demand for the assurance from the workmen of peaceful and normal resumption of work.
It is fair to infer that the receipt
·of this letter should have persuaded the Management in a spirit of
goodwill, to lift the lock-out and give a trial to the workers' willingness.
ls not a worker's word, until the contrary is proved, as good as
his bond 9
Moreover, a strike is called oft when the strikers agree to
come back to work. Curiously enough, the management struck a dis-
·cordant note in their letter two davs lat•cr.
Instead of a favourable
wesponse, the appellant recited the 'old facts and concluded :
''We have no intention of keeping the oftice closed longer
than is necessary, and as soon as the Managcn1ent is reasonably convinced that discipline and normal production will be
maintained and that there will be no recurrence of the acts
of indiscipline which led to the illegal strike and closure, we
shall take steps to open the ot1icc."
A
B
c
D
E
F
The shift in stand is obvious. The first letter merely demanded of the
workmeu an assurance of normal and peaceful resumption of work.
When this was given the Management quietly
tilted its
stance
and
demanded that it should k 'reasonably convinced that disciipline and
G
normal production will be maintained and that there will be no recurrence of the acts of indiscipline' ..... The further letter of October 31, 1966 by the Union highlights the anxiety of the workers for
resumption of work.
Of· course, the staying power of the workers is
ltmited and wanes after a time. Naturally, they press the Management
to withdraw the closure. The language of the letter Exhibit E-7 is
tellingly temperate :
H
"Assuming though not conceding even by any stretch
of imagination that there was an illegal strike as alleged by
A
B
c
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 976] 3 S.C.R
you and the lock-out for 41 days till date after the Unions ..
unequivocal assurance of peace and cooperation given to you
on behalf of the workmen in their letter dated 21-9-66
111
reply to your notice dated 20-9-66 where you asked for such
an assurance. So far as the Unions' demands arc concerned.-
they are only of incidental nature because of the
suffering
thrust upon the workers on account of the unproved Jock out.
We want peace and a cli111ate where lock-out and strike will
be a matter of the past. In that spirit we have selected the
least controversial 11 items out of all the items of demands
for immediate settlement. Hope you will appreciate the same
by entering into a negotiated settlement and we assur.e you
that if necessary we shall not even fight the Bonus case before
the Tribunal if on that item also you agree to settle."
\
It was mentioned by Shri Sibbal that there
were
charge-sheets
against the workers at the instance of the Management which embittered
·..l
:relations. There is also the reference in the evidence of the Deputy
Conunissioner of Labour that the Management was unwilling to lift the
lock-out when requested and the workers were unwilling to withdraw
the strike without settlement of disputes.
In an escalating situation of
D
conflict, developments lead to deterioration of industrial quiet and we
have to look at the whole picture with realism.
There was a minor ripple of disputation as to whether the evidence
recorded by the Fifth Industrial Tribunal between the date when the
transfer order was passed by the government and the re-transfer order
was mad·e could be read as evidence.
The Tribunal has come to the
E
same conclusion both by excluding and by including such evidence in
his verdict. Shri Kapil Sibbal has fairly taken us through these materials to convince us that the verdict cannot be· deflected by eliminating
or reading the disputed testimony. We feel satisfied that there is much
to be said in favour of the ultimate view taken by the Tribunal that
blameworthiness may be equally apportioned between the parties. Had
the Management reacted with goodwill when the workers the very next
F
day offered to be peaceful and resume work, the prolonged situation
of cessation of work could have been saved.
It is therefore a case
which attracts Indian Marine Service (supra). In that ease also this
Court found it fair to direct that the workmen should get half the
wages during the strike period.
The Tribunal's view is certainly not
unreasonnable. May be, it is a just solution. We hope that both sides.
after these long years, will bury the hatchet and work for the better
G
efficiency and greater status of a leading newspaper of India.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is proper to direct
that the appeal be dismissed but the parties wiIJ bear their respective
costs. Before parting with this case we deem it our duty to record our
appreciation of the thoroughness of preparation of Shri Kapil Sibbal,
a young advocate of promise, who has assisted the Court as
amicus
H
curiae with precedential industry and persuasive felicity.
P.B.R.
Appeal dismissea.