Case Analysis: Feroz Din and Others vs The State of West Bengal
Case Details
Case name: Feroz Din and Others vs 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 (by special leave)
Source court or forum: Calcutta High Court
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. owned a sheet‑mill at Burnpur that had been declared a public utility service. After a slow‑down strike in the Hot‑Mill section, the Company issued charge‑sheets to several workers and dismissed four of them, which intensified the industrial unrest.
On 8 April 1953 the Company served a notice on the Hot‑Mill workers stating that those who did not record their willingness to work by 2 p.m. on 10 April would be considered no longer employed. Forty workers complied; the remaining three hundred workers did not respond. Consequently, on 11 April 1953 the entire sheet‑mill workforce (about 1,300 workers) commenced a sit‑down strike that continued until 20 April 1953.
On 25 April 1953 the Company issued a second notice reiterating that the workers had been deemed no longer employed from 10 April and that formal discharge would become effective if they failed to record willingness by 11 a.m. on 28 April. Following this notice, on 27 April 1953 the workers (except those engaged in essential services) undertook a further strike lasting twenty‑two hours.
The Labour Minister intervened on 21 April, proposing reinstatement of the discharged workers if they reported for duty. The Company issued the 25 April notice to give effect to that proposal.
On 19 May 1953 the Company lodged a complaint under section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with governmental sanction dated 2 May 1953, alleging that the two strikes were illegal and that the appellants had instigated them. The magistrate of Asansol convicted the five appellants and sentenced each to three months’ simple imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge and by the Calcutta High Court on revision (Criminal Revision No. 1005 of 1955).
The appellants obtained special leave and filed Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1958 before the Supreme Court of India, seeking to set aside the conviction, overturn the sentence, and declare the governmental sanction invalid.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was required to answer three questions:
Whether the notices dated 8 April 1953 and 25 April 1953 effected a lock‑out of the Hot‑Mill workers.
Whether a discharge of employees, as effected by those notices, fell within the definition of “lock‑out” in section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the sanction granted by the Government of West Bengal under section 34(1) was valid in view of the factual matrix of the alleged offence.
The appellants contended that the notices merely postponed formal discharge until 28 April and therefore amounted to an illegal lock‑out; they argued that a lock‑out existed from 10 April, making the subsequent strikes lawful under section 24(3). They further maintained that even if a discharge had occurred on 10 April, it should be treated as a lock‑out, and they challenged the validity of the governmental sanction for lacking a factual recital.
The State argued that the notices effected an immediate discharge on 10 April, that a discharge did not constitute a lock‑out within the meaning of section 2(1), and that the sanction was properly obtained because the factual material had been placed before the sanctioning authority.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
The Court considered the following provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
Section 2(1) – definition of “lock‑out” as the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him.
Section 22 – requirement of prior notice before a strike or lock‑out in a public utility service.
Section 23 – prohibition of strikes and lock‑outs during conciliation proceedings and for seven days thereafter.
Section 24(1) – declares a strike or lock‑out illegal if commenced in contravention of sections 22 or 23.
Section 24(2) – provides that a strike declared as a consequence of an illegal lock‑out (or vice‑versa) shall not be deemed illegal.
Section 24(3) – was relied upon by the appellants to claim protection for a strike following an illegal lock‑out.
Section 27 – creates an offence for a person who instigates or acts in furtherance of an illegal strike.
Section 33 – restricts discharge of a workman during conciliation proceedings except with authority’s permission.
Section 34(1) – requires that no court take cognizance of an offence unless a complaint is made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government.
Section 2(oo) (amended 2 October 1953) – defines “re‑trenchment” as termination of service for any reason other than disciplinary punishment.
Section 25F (amended 2 October 1953) – prescribes the procedure for re‑trenchment.
The Court applied a two‑fold test to determine the existence of a lock‑out: (i) a literal comparison of the employer’s act with the definition in section 2(1), focusing on whether the act was a “refusal … to continue to employ” or a termination of employment; and (ii) a purposive construction ensuring consistency with the remaining provisions of the Act, particularly sections 22, 23, 33 and the amendment provisions on re‑trenchment.
For the validity of the sanction under section 34(1), the Court applied the principle that the sanctioning authority must have been placed before the material facts constituting the offence, even if those facts were not enumerated in the sanction order, following the precedent set in Gokalchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King.
The Court relied on the earlier decision in Presidency Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Presidency Jute Mills Co. Employees Union, which held that a discharge does not fall within the definition of “lock‑out”.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court first examined the language of the two notices. It held that the expression “considered to be no longer employed” signified a discharge rather than a refusal to employ, and that the later notice merely reiterated the earlier discharge and sought reinstatement in accordance with the Labour Minister’s suggestion. Consequently, the Court concluded that the workers had been discharged on 10 April 1953 and that no lock‑out had occurred.
Applying the first limb of its test, the Court found that the employer’s act did not match the statutory definition of “lock‑out” because the act terminated the employment relationship instead of refusing to continue it. Under the second limb, the Court reasoned that extending the definition to include discharge would conflict with sections 22, 23 and 33 and would render the later amendments on re‑trenchment incoherent. The Court therefore affirmed the principle that discharge is not a lock‑out.
Having determined that no lawful lock‑out existed, the Court applied section 24(1) and held that the strikes of 11‑20 April and 27 April 1953 were illegal because they were commenced without the notice required by section 22. The defence under section 24(3) was rejected as the alleged lock‑out was not recognised by law.
Regarding the sanction, the Court observed that the factual matrix of the alleged offence had been placed before the sanctioning authority, satisfying the requirement of section 34(1). Accordingly, the sanction was held to be valid.
Finally, the Court applied section 27 to the appellants’ conduct, finding that they had instigated the illegal strikes and were therefore guilty of the offence. The conviction was upheld, but the Court exercised its discretion to modify the sentence, ordering simple imprisonment for the period already served, a fine of Rs 100, and a default imprisonment of fifteen days for each appellant in case of non‑payment of the fine.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby refusing any reversal of the conviction under section 27. It modified the sentence by crediting the period already served, imposing a fine of Rs 100 on each appellant, and directing a further simple imprisonment of fifteen days in default of payment of the fine. The appeal was dismissed with these modifications, and the appellants remained convicted for instigating illegal strikes.