ROHTAS INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION V. STATE OF BIHAR, AIR 1963 PAT. 170
FACTS:
In Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 498 of 1959, petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union, called the Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh. For disputes regarding non-payment of bonus and non implementation of Shree Jee Jee Bhoy’s award, there was a strike notice served by petitioner No. 1 on respondent No. 2. The strike was started in the factories of the Rohtas Industries Limited on the 3rd September, 1957, and it was called off on the 3rd October, 1957, on the basis of an agreement between the management and the workers dated the 2nd October, 1957.
By this agreement the parties agreed to refer certain matters in dispute to arbitration. Under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act the Government of Bihar published the arbitration agreement in the Bihar Gazette. The arbitration agreement is to the following effect:
“Agreement under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between Rohtas Industries Limited and its workmen.”
In a nutshell, Rohtas Industries, located in Bihar, faced a dispute with its employees represented by the Rohtas Industries Staff Union. The employees demanded certain benefits and improvements in working conditions. The dispute escalated, and the employees resorted to strike action. In response, the management sought an injunction from the Court to restrain the employees from striking, arguing that the dispute fell outside the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
ISSUE:
Whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applied to a dispute between the management of Rohtas Industries and its employees?
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that compensation by the workmen to the employer has no direct connection with the employment or non-employment or the condition of employment of any workman and so does not come within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The opposite viewpoint was presented by the Additional Solicitor General and it was contended that the definition of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act was wide enough to cover the question of compensation to be paid to the employer by the workmen for the loss caused to business by the launching of the strike. Reference was made to the decision of the Federal Court in Western India Automobiles Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay [AIR 1949 FC 111], where it was held by the Federal Court that the question of reinstatement of a workman is covered by the definition of “industrial dispute” in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
RATIONALE
Scope and Object of the Industrial Disputes Act
The Court considered the scope and object of the Industrial Disputes Act and ascertained for whose benefit the protection of Sections 22 and 23 are intended. It observed that these sections undoubtedly imposed a duty on the employees, but the important question is to whom was the duty owed? Was it intended by the framers of the Act to make the duty one which was owed to the employers, or was it a duty owed to the public? The preamble of the Industrial Disputes Act suggests that the object of the Act is the proper adjustment of relations between capital and labour, preservation of law and order, and the increase of industrial production.
To whom do the employees owe the duty to?
Upon the consideration of the various provisions of the Act it is manifest that the overriding purpose of the Act is the benefit of the community and not the benefit of the employees or the employers. It is true that S. 24 imposes a statutory duty on the employees not to commence or declare an illegal strike. But it is manifest that if there is a breach of this statutory duty on the part of the employees, the employer has no right of Civil action against the employees in default apart from the statutory penalty provided by Section 26(1). Similarly, if the employer declares an illegal lock-out, there is a breach of the statutory obligation created by S. 24, but the employees have no right of civil action. The exclusive remedy open to them is criminal prosecution under Section 26(2) of the Act. For these reasons the Judge held that the duties imposed by Ss. 22, 23 and 24 of the Act are statutory duties owed by the employees not to the employers concerned but duties owed to the public which can be solely enforced by criminal prosecution under S. 26(1) of the Act. It follows, therefore, that the employers have no right of civil action for damages against the employees participating in an illegal strike within the meaning of S. 24(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
HELD
The Court held that the award of the arbitrators in all the five references under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act must be held to be ultra vires and illegal so far as the arbitrators had granted compensation to the employees by the workmen participating in the strike for the losses due to the strike. In the Court’s opinion the petitioners were entitled to grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the award of the arbitrators in all the five references so far as they granted compensation to the employers by the workmen concerned for the losses due to the strike.
The Court allowed these applications, but did not propose to make any order as to costs.