MANAGEMENT OF KAIRBETTA ESTATE, KOTAGIRI versus RAJ AMANICKAM AND OTHERS.

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 371

rationalisation scheme required them to do, they refus-ed to do work, which the employer had no right in law to ask them to do. It is difficult to say that ·this amounted to "strike" by the workmen ; but even if it could be said to be " strike " such strike was certainly not illegal or unjustified.

Our conclusion therefore is that the Tribunal was right in its opinion that the closure of the mills by the employer amounted to an illegal lock-out, and the workmen, unable to work 'in consequence of the lock-out, are entitled to wages for the period of absence, caused. by such lock-out.

The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Nor th Brook ] ute Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen Das G"pta ].

MANAGEMENT OF KAIRBETTA ESTATE, KOTAGIRI v. RAJ AMANICKAM AND OTHERS.

(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. 0. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)

I ndu.strial Dispute-Lay-off compensation-Closure of division due to disturbances by workers-Lock-out-Subsequent reopening of division-Claim for lay-off compensation-Lock-out and lay-off, Distinction-Industrial Disputes Act, z947-(I4 of z947), ss. 2(l), 2 (kkk), 25C, 25E(iii), 33C.

The appellant's manager was violently attacked by its workmen as result of which he sustained serious injuries. The workers in the lower division also threatened the appellant's staff working in that division that they would murder them if they worked there. The appellant was therefore compelled to notify that the division would be closed until further notice. Subsequently as result of conciliation before the labour officer, the division was opened again. The workers made claim for lay-off compensation under s. 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, r947, for the period during which the lower division was closed on the footing that :the management for their own reasons did not choose to run the division during that period. The appellant's answer was, inter alia, that the closure of the division amounted to lock-out which under the circumstances was perfectly justified and as such the workers were not entitled to claim any lay-off compensation :

Held; (r) that the concept of lock-out is essentially different from that of lay-off and where the closure of business amounts to lock-out under s. 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

March z4.

it woulrl be impossible to bring it within the scope of lay-off under s. z (kkk) of the Act.

of ·(z) that the expression "any other reason " ins. z (kkk) means any reason which is allied or analogous to reasons already any reason which is allied or analogous to reasons already reason which is allied or analogous to reasons already already v. specified in that section.

Management of

Kairbetta Estate means any reason which is allied or analogous to reasons already any reason which is allied or analogous to reasons already reason which is allied or analogous to reasons already already

]. J{. Hosiery Factory v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India & Anr, A.LR. 1956 All. 498, approved.

Rajamanickam

(3) that the lock-out which was justified on the facts of the case, \vas not lay-off and therefore the 'vorkmen \Vere not entitled to claim any lay;off compensation.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal

No. 91 of 1959.

Appeal by special leave from the decision dated March 24, 1958, of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in R. P. No. 35 of 1958.

G. B. Pai and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.

M. K. Ramamurthi and T. S. Venkataraman, for the respondents.

1960. March 24.

The Judgment of the Court was

delivered by

GA.TENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave iR directed against the order passed by the Labour Court, at Coimbatore directing the appellant, the Management of the Kairbetta Estate, Kotagiri, to pay lay-off compensation to its workr;nen, the respondents, for the period between July 28, 1957, to September 2, 1957. This order was passed on complaint filed by the respondents before the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).

Gajendragadkar ].

The material facts leading to the respondents' com-plaint must be set out briefly at the outset. On July 26, 1957, Mr. Ramakrishna Iyer, the appellant's Manager, was assaulted by some of the workmen of the appellant. He suffered six fractures and had to be in hospital in Coouoor and Madras for over month. The appellant's staff working in the division known as Kelso Division was also threatened by the workmen. As result of these threats three members of the staff wrote to the appellant on July 27, 1957, that they were afraid to go down to the lower division and it was impossible for them to work there becau~e their lives were in danger. , They added that tho workers in the lower division were threatening them

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

that they would murder them if they worked in the 1960 .lower division. On receiving this communication rom its · sta ff t appe II ant noti on t same fi day J(airbetta Estate Management of that the Kelso Division would be closed from that v: day onwards until further notice. This notice referred Rajamanickam to.the brutal·assault on theManager and to the threat . -.. held out against the field staff who were reluc'tant to Ga1endragadkar ], face the risk of working in the lower division. It appears that the Kelso Division continued to be closed until September 2, 1957, on which date it was opened, as result of conciliation before the labour officer, when the respondents gave an assurance that there would not be any further trouble. The claim for lay-off is made for the said period during which the divi-sion remained closed between July 28 to September 2, 1957. '

Soon after the division was closed the respondents made complaint to the Labour Court (No. 43of1957) under s. 33A of the Act in which they ,alleged that they had been stopped from doing their work without notice or enquiry and claimed an order of reinstate-[4 ]ment with back wages and continuity of service. At the hearing of the said complaint the appellant raised preliminary objection that the closure in question was lock-out and that it did not amount either to an alteration of conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen nor . did it constitute discharge or punishment by dismissal or otherwise under els. and of s. 33 respectively, and so the petition was incompetent. This preliminary objection was upheld by the Labour Court and the complaint was accord-ingly dismissed on November 30, 1957.

Thereafter the present complaint was filed by the respondents on January 31, 1958, under s. 330 of the Act. In this complaint it was stated that the respond-ents were refused work from July 28 to September 2, 1957, "by declaring lock-out of division of the estate " and the claim :inade was that, as the manage-ment for their own reasons did not choose to run the division during the said days and laid-off the respond-ents, the respondents were entitled to claimlay-off compensation under s. 250 of the Act. Against· this pqmplaint. the appellant raised several contentions . ..s

374 SUPREME COUR.T REPORTS

1960 It was urged on it.s behalf that the complaint was in-competent under s. 330 and that the Labour Court Management of Kairbetta Estate had no jurisdiction to deal with it. It was also con-v. tended that the closure of the division amounted to llajamanicham lock-out which under the circumstances was perfectly . -justified and as such the respondents were not entitl~d Ga;endragadkar J. to claim any lay-off compensation. 'l'he Labour Court rejected the preliminary objection as to want of juris-diction and held that the complaint was competeut under s. 33C. On the merits it found in favour of the respondents and so it directed the appellant to pay to the respondents the lay-off compensation for the period in question. It is this order which is challenge< I before us in the present appeal; and the same two questions are raised before us.

For the purpose of deciding this appeal we will assume that the complaint filed by the respondents under s. 33C was competent and that the Labour Court could have entertained claim for lay-off compen-sation if the respondents were otherwise entitled to it.

•On that assumption the question which we propose to decide is whether the closure of the appellant's divi-si011 during the relevant period which amounts to lock-out can he said to fall within the definition of lay-off. We have already pointed out that in the earlier complaint by the respondents under s. 33A it has been held by the Labour Court that the closure in question was lock-out and as such the appellant had not contravened the provisions of s. 33 of the Act. Even in the present application the respondents have admitted that the said closure is leek-out but they have added that lock-out falls within the definition of Jay-off and that is the basis for their claim for lay-off compensation. The question which thus arises for our decision is: Does lock-out fall under s. 2(kkk) which defines Jay-off?

Section 2(kkk) defines lay-off as meaning the failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal, power or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machi-nery or for any other reason to give employment to workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of his industrial establishment and who has not been

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

retrenched. There is· an explanation to the definition. z9[60 ]which it 'is unnecessary to set out. It is clear that the M anageme11t of lay-off takes place for one or more of the reasons J<airlietta Estate specified in the definitioa. Lay-off may be due to v; shortage of coal or shortage of power or shortage of Rajamanio/1am raw materials or accumulation of stocks or break-down of machinery or any other reason. " Any other other Gajemiragadkar reason" to which the definition refers must, we thillk, be reason which is allied or analogous to reasons already specified. It has been urged before us on behalf of the respondents that " any other reason" mentioned in the definition need not be similar to the preceding reasons but shoulainclude any other reason of whatsoever character for which lay-off may have taken place ; and in support of this argm:b.~nt reliance is placed on s. 25E(iii). Section 25E deals. with three categories of cases where compensation is not liable to be paid to workman even though he may have been laid-off. One of these is prescribed by s. 25E(iii); if the laying-off is due to strike or slowing down of production on the part of workmen in another part of the establishment no compensation has to be paid. The argument is that laying-off which is specified in this clause has been excepted because, but for the , exception, it .. would have attracted the definition of . s. 2(kkk) and would have imposed an obligation on the employer to pay lay-off compensation. That no doubt is true ; but we do not see how the case specified in this clause is inconsistent with the view that "any othei· reason " must be similar to the pre. ceding reasons specified in the definition. If there is strike or slowing down of production in one part of the establishment, and if lay-off is the consequence, the reason for which lay-off has taken place would undoubtedly be similar to the reasons specified in the definition. We are, therefore, satisfied that the expression "any .other reason" should be construed to mean reason similar or analogous to the preceding reasons specified in the definition. That is the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in J. K. Hosiery Factory v. Labour Appellate 1'ribunal of India & Anr.(_!);

" Any other other Gajemiragadkar J.

(I) A.I.R, 1956 All. +98,

376 SUPREME COUH.T REPOl{TS [1960]

'9[60 ]Let us now consider what fock-out means under A! anagement of the Act. Section 2(1) defines lock-out as 'meaning J(airbetta Estate the closing of place of employment, or the suspen-v. sion of work, or the refusal by an employer to con-Rajamanickam tinue to employ any number of ]Jersons employed by --him. It may be relevant to point out ~hat the Gajendmgadka• J. definition of lock-out contained in s. 2(e) of the Trade Disputes Act, 1929 (VII of 1929), had, in addition to the present definition under s. 2(1), included an addi-tional clause describing lock·out which provided that " such closing, suspension or refusal occurs in consequence of dispute and. is intended for the purpose of compelling ·those persons or of aiding another employer in compelling persons employed by him to accept terms or conditions of or affecting em-ployment". This clause has now been _deleted. Even so, the essential character of lock-out continues to be substantially the same. Lock-out can be described as the antithesis of strike. Just as strike is a. weapon available to the employees for enforcing their industrial deniands, lock-out is weapon available to the employer to persuade by coercive process the employees to see his point of view and to accept his demands. In the struggle l]etween capital and labour the weapon of strike is available to labour and is often used by it, so is the weapon of lock-out avail-able to the employer and can be used by him. The use of both the weapons by the respective parties must, however, be subject to the relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter V which deals with strikes and lock-outs clearly brings out the antithesis between the two weapons and the limitations subject to which both of them must be exercised. Thus the concept of lock-out is essentially different from the concept of lay-off, and so where the closure of business amounts to 'lock-out under s. 2(1) it would be impossible to bring it within the scope of lay-off under.s. 2(kkk). As observ-ed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in M/S. Presi-dency Jute Mills Go. Ltd. v. Presidency Jute Mills Go. Employees' Union ([2]), in considering the essential character of lock-out its dictionary meaning may be borne in mind. According to the dictionary meaning

(2) [I9S•] L.A.C. g>.

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

lock-out means " & refusal by the employer to furnish work to the operatives except on conditions to be . l , accepted by the latter co 11 ect1ve y '.

Management of Kairbetta E;tate

Stated broadly lay-off generally occurs in continu-v. ing business, whereas lock-out is the closure of the Rajainanickam business. In the case of lay-off, owing tp the reasons . . Specified in S. 2(kkk) the employer is unable to give Ga;ondragadkar ]. employment to one or more workmen. In the case of lock-out, the employer closes the business and locks out the whole body of workmen for reasons which have no relevance to causes specified in s. 2(kkk). Thus the nature of the two concepts is entirely differ-ent and so are their consequences. In the case of . lay-off the employer may be liable to pay compensa-j;ion as provided by s. 25(C), (D) and (E) of the Act; but this liability cannot be invoked in the case of lock-out. The liability of the employer in cases of lock-out would d_epend upon whether the lock-out- was justified and legal or not; but whatever the liability, the provisions applicable to the payment of lay-off compensation cannot be applied to the cases of lock-out. Therefore, we hold that the lock-out in the present case was not lay-off, and as such the res-pondents are not entitled to claim any lay-off compensa-tion from the appellant. Incidentally we would like to add that the circumstances of this case clearly show that the lock-out was fully justified. The appellant's Manager had been violently attacked and the other members of the staff working in the lower division were threatened by the respondents. In such case if the appellant locked out his workmen no grievance can be made against its conduct by the respondents. In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the complaint filed by the respondents under s. 330 is dismissed. There would be no ordsr as to costs.

Appeal allowed .