Rohtas Industries Staff Union v State of Bihar AIR 1963 Pat 170, (1962) IILLJ 420 Pat

1. The case will be appealed against the State Government and the Employer Company Cemon
Industries Limited. The Petitioner will be Cemon Industries Workmen Union (CIWU) and the
Respondent will be the State of Gujarat and Cemon Industries Limited.
Therefore the case title will be Cemon Industries Workmen Unon (CIWU) and Employees
(specific if any) v State of Gujarat and Cemon Industries Limited.

2. Appropriate Authority: The Trade Union can file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian
Constitution before the High Court of Gujarat seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the arbitral
award passed against the Trade Union and free them from civil liability enforcing the immunity
to them under Section 18 of Trade Union Act and validating their right to strike under the
Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

3. Issues and Arguments:

a. Whether the award of compensation by workman to employers for loss of business caused
by strike is beyond the scope of Section 10A of Industrial Disputes Act?

The Petitioner submits that compensation by workmen to employer has no direct

connection with the employment or non-employment or the condition of employment of
any workman and so does not fall under the definition of Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes
Act 1947.
(A Precedent1 does not give a final ratio for this answer but the judge proceeded with
further merits on the assumption that compensation by workmen falls within the scope of
Seciton 2(k) of Industrial disputes Act 1947).

b. Whether the award of Arbitrators is illegal and ultra vires and if the arbitral award was
passed with a mistake of law and non-application of mind by the arbitral tribunal?

The Petitioner humbly submits that the arbitrators have erred in holding compensation to
be payable by the Workmen to the Respondent No. 2 ignoring the legal provision granting
immunity to the Petitioner Trade Union under Section 17 and 18 of Trade Union Act 1926
from criminal as well as civil liability and the fact and law that the strike so led by the
Petitioner was a legal strike and within its right to strike under the Industrial disputes Act
1947.

It is therefore submitted that the award passed by the arbitrators so far as the question of
compensation is concerned is vitiated by error of law and must be quashed by grant of writ
in nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It has been held that in commercial affairs, the rights of traders are limited by the right of
others and so far as labour rights are concerned, the rights of employer are conditioned by

1
Rohtas Industries Staff Union v State of Bihar AIR 1963 Pat 170, (1962) IILLJ 420 Pat
 the right of men to give or withhold their services since the right of workmen is an essential
element of principle of collective bargaining. 2 It is therefore submitted that the right of
Respondent No. 2 in conducting their trade has not been interfered with given the notice of
strike was served and the right to trade comes with limitation and legal conditions one of
which is the right to strike under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Arbitrators have failed to apply the principle that there was no mens rea for it to be a
criminal conspiracy and that the employer right is a limited one and there was no illegality in
conclusion of the strike and for the above reasons submitted, the arbitral award requiring
payment of compensation is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

C. Whether Arbitrators have committed an error in law by ignoring the immunity to Trade
Union under Section 18(1) of the Trade Union Act 1926?

Section 18 states that “No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any Civil
Court against any registered Trade Union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any
act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade
Union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some other person to break a
contract of employment, or that it is in interference with the trade, business or employment
of some other person with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or of his
labour as he wills."

It has been held in Rohtas Industries case that legality or illegality of strike under Section
24(1) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has no bearing on the question of immunity furnished
under Swction 18 of the Trade Union Act 1926. The same principle has been followed in
several English cases.3

It is therefore submitted that the Arbitrators have misdirected themselves in law in not
considering immunity granted to Trade Unions under the Section 18 of the Trade Union Act
assuming the illegality of the strike since that parameter has no bearing on status of
immunity to Trade Unions.

c. Whether the Respondent Company has no civil action for damages against the workers who
had taken part in illegal strike?

It is submitted that the only remedy open to the Respondent Company is criminal
prosecution under Section 26 of the Industrial Disputes Act as against which also the Trade
Union has immunity under Section 17 of the Trade Union Act 1926.

It has been an established principle that if no penalty has been attached to a statutory duty,
there is no civil remedy as against it and if the breach has affected the general public with
2
Crofter Hand-woven, Harris Tweed Co. v. Veith, 1942-I All ER 142; Mogul S. S. Co. v. Me.
Gregor Gov. and Co.), 1892 AC 25
3
Dallimore v. Williams and Jesson, (1914) 30 TLR 432; Fowler v. Kibble, (1922) I Ch 487;
 business relation to essential commodities or public utility, the duty is owed to public and
not a private party and hence the criminal remedy. 4

d. Whether the strike was legal under Industrial Disputes Act?

Section 23 imposes a duty on employees that “No workman who is employed in any
industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and no employer of any such
workman shall declare a lockout (a) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before
a Board and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings; (b) during the pendency of
proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and two months after the
conclusion of such proceedings; or (c) during any period in which a settlement or award is in
operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award." Such a
Strike shall be illegal under Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is evident that the
overriding purpose of the Act is benefit of community rather that employees of employers.

Therefore, the statutory duty if towards the general public and not the employers and
hence there is no civil remedy like that of compensation. Hence the exclusive remedy open
is of criminal prosecution.

It is submitted that since the strike was not illegal for having done as per the procedure of
giving notice and not during the prohibited period post-arbitration or during pendency of
conciliation proceedings, there is no doubt that the strike was a legal one pursuant to their
right exercised under Section 2(qq) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

It is finally submitted that without prejudice to the above Arguments that the strike was
legal and exercise of a statutory right under Industrial Disputes Act 1947, even if it is
assumed to be an illegal one, it has no effect on the immunity granted to Trade Unions
under the Trade Union Act 1926.

4
Culler v. Wandsworth Stadium Ltd., 1949 AC 398;  Black v. Fife Coal Co. Ltd. 1912 AC 149;
Atkinson v. Newcastle; Cowley v. Newmarket Local Board, (1892 AC 345 at p. 352);