top of page
Writer's pictureSanya Agarwal

MANAGEMENT OF CHANDRAMALAI ESTATE Vs. ITS WORKMEN, AIR 1960 SC 902

Decided: 5 APRIL 1960


Bench: JUSTICE K DASGUPTA, JUSTICE K WANCHOO, JUSTICE P GAJENDRAGADKAR


FACTS

On August 9, 1955, the labour union of Chandramalai Estate submitted a list of 15 demands to the Estate Manager. While the management agreed to meet some of the demands, the key requests remained unresolved. Subsequently, on August 29, 1955, the Labor Officer in Trichur recommended mutual negotiations between the management representatives and the workers. The matter was then forwarded to the Conciliation Officer in Trichur for conciliation. On November 30, 1955, the workers issued a notice of a strike effective from December 9, 1955, which concluded on January 5, 1956. On October 17, 1957, the Industrial Tribunal in Ernakulam granted the workmen's demands on all issues. In response, the management of Chandramalai Estate filed an appeal against the Tribunal's award.


ISSUES

  • Was the amount obtained by the management for the rice supplied to the workers following decontrol deemed excessive? If so, do the workers have the right to receive a reimbursement of the surplus amount collected?

  • Are the workers eligible to receive a suitable allowance with retroactive effect from the date it was discontinued, and what should be the specified rate for such an allowance?

  • Do the workers have the right to receive remuneration for the duration of the strike?


DECISION OF TRIBUNAL

The tribunal determined that the management had imposed charges exceeding the cost price, leading to a refund. An allowance of Rs 39 per workman was granted as a suitable compensation. The tribunal attributed the occurrence of the strike to both parties and, as a consequence, directed the management to remunerate the workmen with 50% of their overall emoluments during the strike period. However, the workmen were deemed ineligible to receive wages for the duration of the strike.


JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT

The court acknowledged the legitimacy of strikes, recognizing them as a legitimate and sometimes inevitable tool for labor. However, it emphasized that the encouragement of strikes should be approached with caution. In the specific case, the court deemed the strike partially justified and partially unjustified, ultimately concluding that it was unjustified. As a result, the court granted the appeal.





Comments


bottom of page