BALLARPUR COLLIERIES CO, versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T. DHANBAD AND ANR.

BALLARPUR COLLIERIES CO, versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T. DHANBAD AND ANR.

The strike was illegal under Section 23(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it was during the pendency of proceedings arising from the reference under Section 36A, to which the appellant was a party. The purported assurance by workers to not strike in future did not amount to a settlement covered by Section 23(c); therefore, Section 23(c) was not attracted.

Parties
Appellant: Ballarpur Collieries Co.; Respondents: The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and A.I.-lt.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 March 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated October 28, 1965 of the Patna High Court in M.j.c. No. 721 of 1962
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Industrial Dispute, Illegality of Strike, Interpretation of Award, Prohibition of Strikes, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 23(b) and (c)
Labour Law Industrial Dispute Illegality of Strike Interpretation of Award Prohibition of Strikes Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 23(b) and (c)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ballarpur Collieries Co.

Appellant

The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and A.I.-lt.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated October 28, 1965 of the Patna High Court in M.j.c. No. 721 of 1962

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the strike by appellant's workers during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal was illegal under Section 23(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  2. 2 Whether Section 23(c) of the Act was attracted due to an alleged breach of settlement with the Regional Labour Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi

The strike was illegal under Section 23(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it was during the pendency of proceedings arising from the reference under Section 36A, to which the appellant was a party. The purported assurance by workers to not strike in future did not amount to a settlement covered by Section 23(c); therefore, Section 23(c) was not attracted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The strike of the workmen is held to be illegal, in violation of Section 23(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  • The order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated April 16, 1960 and the order of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bombay dated November 19, 1960, are quashed.