MANAGEMENT OF CHANDRAMALAI ESTATE V. ITS WORKMEN, AIR 1960 SC 902
FACTS
The Management of Chandramalai Estate, the appellant, was engaged in the business of tea plantation and processing.Disputes arose between the management and the workmen regarding the payment of wages and other benefits.
The workmen claimed that they were entitled to additional payments for certain types of work they performed.The management contended that the workmen were not entitled to extra payments beyond what was specified in their contracts.
The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the workmen, ordering the management to pay the additional amounts claimed by the workmen.
Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, the management appealed to the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision.
The management then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
ISSUE
Was the price realised by the management for the rice sold to the workers after decontrol excessive; and if so, are the workers entitled to get refund of the excessive value so collected?
Are the workers entitled to get a cumbly allowance with retrospective effect from the date it was stopped and what should be the rate of such allowance?
Are the workers entitled to get wages for the period of the strike?
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
On the first issue, the management’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 had charged more than the cost price and held that they were bound to refund the same.
On the second issue, 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 a cumbly allowance of Rs. 39 per workman – made up of Rs.7 per year for the year 1949, 1950 and 1951 and Rs. 9 per year for the years 1952 and 1953.
The management contended that the strike was illegal and unjustified.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
On the first issue the workmen’s case was that after the control on rice was lifted by the Travancore-Cochin Government in April 1954, the management which continued to sell rice to the workmen, charged at the excessive rate of 12 annas per measure for the rice brought in excess of a quota for 1-1/2 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 second issue was in respect of a claim for cumbly allowance. Chandramalai 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.
On the third issue the workmen pleaded that the strike was justified.
HELD
First Contention
On the first question of excess price of rice having been collected the appellant’s contention 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 the management’s own documents.
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.
Second Contention
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 of a proper cumbly allownace had become a part of their conditions of service.
We do not think that 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.
Third Contention
This brings us to the question whether the tribunal was right in awarding 50 per cent of emoluments to the workmen for the strike period. The Union did not choose to wait and after 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 nothing in the nature of the demands to justify such hasty action and in fairness the 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.
The grievance for collection of excess price of rice was more recent but even so it was not of such urgent nature that the interests of labour would have suffered irreparably if the 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 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. There may be cases where the demand is of such urgent and serious nature that it would not be reasonable to expect labour to wait till after making the 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. The Government appears to have acted quickly and referred the dispute on January 3, 1956. It was after this that the strike was called off. The strike in such circumstances could not 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 find 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. 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. We therefore allow the appeal in it and set aside the award in so far as it directed the payment of 50 per cent of the total emoluments for the strike period but maintain the rest of the award.