Case Analysis: Feroz Din and Others v. The State of West Bengal

Case Details

Case name: Feroz Din and Others v. The State of West Bengal
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: A.K. Sarkar, S.K. Das, M. Hidayatullah
Date of decision: 25 November 1959
Citation / citations: 1960 AIR 363; 1960 SCR (2) 319
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1958; Criminal Revision No. 1005 of 1955; Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1955
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal (special leave)
Source court or forum: Calcutta High Court

Source Judgment: Read judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

Facts. The appellants, four employees of Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and one non‑employee, participated in a slow‑down strike in the Hot Mill of the Sheet Mill at the Burnpur factory, which was declared a public utility service. The company dismissed the four employee‑appellants after an enquiry for taking part in the slow‑down and for other misconduct. On 8 April 1953 the company issued a notice stating that any worker who did not record his willingness to operate the plant at normal capacity by 2 p.m. on 10 April would be deemed “no longer employed.” Approximately three hundred workers failed to comply and were therefore considered discharged on 10 April. A sit‑down strike commenced on 11 April and continued until 20 April. On 25 April a second notice reiterated that the workers had been deemed discharged as of 10 April and warned that failure to record willingness by 11 a.m. on 28 April would result in removal of their names from the roll. A further twenty‑two‑hour strike began on 27 April. The company obtained governmental sanction on 2 May and filed a complaint under section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act on 19 May 1953.

Procedural history. A Magistrate of Asansol convicted each appellant of an offence under section 27 and sentenced them to three months’ simple imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol. The appellants then sought revision before the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed the revision. Special leave to appeal was granted, and the matter was placed before the Supreme Court of India as Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1958, arising from the High Court judgment dated 4 July 1956.

Issues, Contentions and Controversy

The Court was required to determine:

(i) Whether the notices dated 8 April and 25 April effected a discharge of the workers or amounted to a “lock‑out” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(ii) Assuming a lock‑out, whether the strikes of 11‑20 April 1953 and 27 April 1953 were illegal under section 24(1) or protected under section 24(3).

(iii) Whether a discharge could be treated as a lock‑out for the purpose of the illegality test in section 24.

(iv) Whether the governmental sanction granted under section 34(1) was valid, given that the sanction document did not expressly recite the factual basis of the alleged offence.

The appellants contended that the notices constituted an illegal lock‑out, that the discharge was pending until 28 April, and that the sanction was defective. The State argued that the notices effected a discharge, not a lock‑out, that discharge fell outside the definition of lock‑out, and that the sanction was valid because the material facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority.

Statutory Framework and Legal Principles

The relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were:

• Section 2(1) – definition of “lock‑out” (refusal by an employer to continue to employ persons).
• Section 2(oo) – definition of “retrenchment.”
• Section 22 – notice requirement for a strike or lock‑out in a public utility.
• Section 23 – prohibition of strikes and lock‑outs during conciliation.
• Section 24(1) – a strike or lock‑out is illegal when it contravenes sections 10, 22 or 23.
• Section 24(2) & 24(3) – a strike declared as a consequence of an illegal lock‑out (or vice‑versa) is not illegal.
• Section 27 – offence of instigating an illegal strike.
• Section 33 – regulation of discharge during conciliation.
• Section 34(1) – requirement of governmental sanction before a court may take cognizance of an offence.

The Court applied a textual‑and‑purposive test to the definition of “lock‑out,” examined the legislative intent reflected in the 1953 amendment introducing a separate definition of “retrenchment,” and employed a conflict‑avoidance test to ensure consistency with sections 22, 23 and 33. For the validity of the sanction, the Court applied the principle that a sanction is valid where the sanctioning authority has been furnished with all material facts, even if those facts are not enumerated on the face of the sanction.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law

The Court first examined the language of the notices. It held that the notice of 8 April expressly stated that workers who failed to record willingness by 2 p.m. on 10 April would be “no longer employed,” and that the notice of 25 April reiterated this discharge. The Court concluded that the notices effected an immediate discharge on 10 April and did not constitute a lock‑out. Relying on the precedent of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Presidency Jute Mills Co. v. Employees Union and on the 2 October 1953 amendment which introduced a separate definition of “retrenchment,” the Court reasoned that “lock‑out” excluded termination of service because the statutory words required a refusal to continue employing, not a termination.

Having found that no lock‑out occurred, the Court applied section 24(1) and held that the strikes of 11‑20 April and 27 April were illegal because they were commenced without compliance with the notice requirement of section 22. Consequently, the appellants’ reliance on section 24(3) was rejected.

Regarding the sanction, the Court observed that the Labour Minister had placed the full factual material before the sanctioning authority before granting sanction on 2 May. Accordingly, the sanction under section 34(1) was upheld as valid, despite the absence of a detailed factual recital on the sanction document itself.

The Court then affirmed the convictions under section 27 and modified the sentences to simple imprisonment for the period already served and a fine of Rs 100 with default imprisonment.

Final Relief and Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the convictions of the appellants for instigating an illegal strike, affirmed that the employer’s notices effected a discharge rather than a lock‑out, and consequently held the strikes to be illegal under section 24(1). The Court modified the sentences, ordering simple imprisonment for the time already served and a fine of Rs 100 with default imprisonment for each appellant. The appeal was therefore rejected and the lower‑court orders were confirmed in the modified form.