1972 (5) TMI 67 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the change in weekly rest days without notice.
2. Legality of the alleged strike on September 22 and 29, 1963.
3. Legality of the alleged lock-out on September 25 and 26, 1963.
4. Vires of paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Change in Weekly Rest Days Without Notice:
The appellant changed the weekly rest days for two collieries, Sijua and Bhelatand, without giving the notice required under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 9A mandates that any change in the conditions of service applicable to workmen, as specified in the Fourth Schedule, requires a prior notice. The court found that the change in weekly rest days falls under the Fourth Schedule items: "hours of work and rest intervals," "leave with wages and holidays," and "withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or change in usage." The court emphasized that the change from Sunday to another day as a weekly rest day affects the workmen's customary privileges and usage, thus requiring notice under Section 9A. The court concluded that the appellant's failure to comply with Section 9A rendered the change ineffective, maintaining the previous schedule of weekly rest days as operative.

2. Legality of the Alleged Strike on September 22 and 29, 1963:
The appellant claimed that the workmen engaged in an illegal strike on September 22 and 29, 1963, due to the non-compliance with the new rest day schedule. However, the court found that since the change in the weekly rest days was not legally effective due to the lack of notice under Section 9A, the workmen were justified in not adhering to the new schedule. Therefore, the court held that there was no illegal strike on these dates.

3. Legality of the Alleged Lock-Out on September 25 and 26, 1963:
The workmen alleged an illegal lock-out on September 25 and 26, 1963, when they were refused work on the grounds of the new rest day schedule. The court found that the refusal to give work on these days constituted a lock-out. Given that coal is a public utility service and no notice under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act was given, the lock-out was deemed illegal under Section 24 of the Act. The court upheld the findings of the Regional Labour Commissioner and the Central Industrial Tribunal, affirming that the lock-out on these dates was illegal.

4. Vires of Paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme:
The appellant challenged the vires of paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme, arguing that it created a quasi-judicial tribunal, which could only be established by the legislature. The court, however, upheld the validity of paragraph 8, stating that the delegation of power to create such a tribunal was within the legislative framework provided by Section 5 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948. The court explained that the increasing complexity of modern administration necessitates such delegated legislation to handle subsidiary and ancillary details. The court concluded that paragraph 8 did not amount to excessive delegation of legislative power and was intra vires.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all six appeals, affirming the decisions of the Regional Labour Commissioner, the Central Industrial Tribunal, and the Patna High Court. The court held that the change in weekly rest days without notice under Section 9A was ineffective, the alleged strikes on September 22 and 29, 1963, were not illegal, the lock-out on September 25 and 26, 1963, was illegal, and paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme was valid. The appeals were dismissed with costs.