{"id":239501,"date":"1959-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959"},"modified":"2015-10-08T14:08:46","modified_gmt":"2015-10-08T08:38:46","slug":"feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959","title":{"rendered":"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 363, \t\t 1960 SCR (2) 319<\/div>\n
Author: A Sarkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkar, A.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFEROZ DIN AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/11\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nDAS, S.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  363\t\t  1960 SCR  (2) 319\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1968 SC 247\t (9,11)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial   Dispute-Strike-Notice   of\t   discharge-Whether\namounts to lock-out-Sanction to prosecute-Facts constituting\nthe  offence  not  shown  on  the  face-Conviction  on\tsuch\nsanction if bad-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of  1947),\nss. 27, 24, 2(1).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA company dismissed from its service four of the appellants,\nfor  taking  part  and instigating others  to  join,  in  an\nillegal\t slowdown  strike  in the Hot Mill  Section  of\t its\nworks,\twhich  were  a\tpublic\tutility\t service.   On\tsuch\ndismissal the slow-down strike however gained strength.\t The\ncompany\t thereupon issued a notice dated April 8,  1953,  to\nthe  workers  of the Hot Mill that unless  they\t voluntarily\nrecorded  their\t willingness  to operate the  plant  to\t its\nnormal\tcapacity, before 2 p.m. of April 10, they  would  be\nconsidered  to be no longer employed by the company.   As  a\nresult\tforty  workers recorded their willingness,  but\t the\nrest  did  not make any response at all.  The  company\tthen\nissued a second notice dated April 25, stating, inter  alia,\nthat  the  Workers who did not record their  willingness  to\nwork  the  plant  to its normal capacity  in  terms  of\t the\nprevious notice dated April 8, had been considered to be  no\nlonger in service and their formal discharge\n320\nfrom the company's service had been kept pending in order to\nassure\tto  the\t fullest  that no one  who  wanted  to\twork\nnormally was being discharged on circumstantial\t assumptions\nand calling upon the workers to record their willingness  by\nApril 28, 1953, to operate the plant to its normal capacity,\nand  further intimating that failing this their names  would\nbe  removed  from the company's rolls  and  their  discharge\nwould become fully effective with all the implications of  a\ndischarge.  After this notice the    entire body of  workers\nof the works except those engaged in the essential  services\nwent on strike Thereafter, the company with the sanction  of\nthe  Government\t filed\ta  complaint  under  S.\t 27  of\t the\nIndustrial  Disputes Act against the appellants\t for  having\ninstigated  and\t incited others to take part in\t an  illegal\nstrike.\nThe  appellants were convicted.\t The  appellants  challenged\nthe  said conviction under S. 27 of the Act contending\tthat\nthe  strike  was  not  illegal as the  strike  had  been  in\nconsequence  of an illegal lock-out declared by the  company\nby  the\t said  notices\tdated April 8  and  April  25.\t The\nappellants further contended that the notices did not effect\na  discharge, but declared a lock-out and that even  if\t the\nnotices did effect a discharge, then also there was a  lock-\nout,  for  a discharge is equally a lock-out.\tFinally\t the\nappellants  challenged the propriety of, the sanction  under\ns.  34(1) of the Act to make the complaint as  the  sanction\ndid  not on the face of it refer to the\t facts\tconstituting\nthe offence.\nHeld,  that  on a construction of the notices they  bad\t the\neffect\tof discharging the workmen, and did not amount to  a\ndeclaration\nThe  removal  of the name of a worker from the Roll  of\t the\ncompany was a formality which the notices said had been kept\npending and this did not prevent the discharge having  taken\neffect.\nThe words \" refusal by an employer to continue to employ any\nnumber\tof  persons  employed by him \" in  S.  2(1)  do\t not\ninclude the discharge of an employee.\nHeld,  further that sanction under s 34(1) of the Act  would\nbe  good  if  it was proved by evidence\t that  it  had\tbeen\ngranted after all the necessary facts had been placed before\nthe  sanctioning authority though the facts were not  stated\non the face of the sanction itself.\nPresidency Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Presidency Jute Mills Co.\nEmployees, Union,<\/a> [1952] I.A.C. 62, approved\nGokalchand  Dwarkadas  Morarka v. The King, (1948)  L.R.  75\nI.A. 30, discussed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.. 48  of
\n1958.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJuly 4, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court,
\n321<\/span>
\nin  Criminal  Revision No. 1005 of 1955 arising out  of\t the
\njudgment  and order dated July 21, 1955, of  the  Additional
\nSessions Judge, Asansol, in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1955.
\nH.   J. Umrigar and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellants.
\nS.   M. Bose, Advocate-General for the State of West Bengal,
\nA.  C.\tMitra,\tD.  N. Mukherjee and P.\t K.  Bose,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
B.   Sen,  P.  K.  Chakravarty\tand B.\tN.  Ghosh,  for\t the
\ninterveners.\n<\/p>\n
1959.  November 25.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nSARKAR J.-There are five appellants before us.\tFour of them
\nwere  employees of a company called the Indian Iron &  Steel
\nCo., Ltd. and the fifth an outsider.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants were convicted by a Magistrate of Asansol  in
\nWest  Bengal,  of an offence under s. 27 of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act,\t for
\nhaving\tinstigated  and incited others to take\t‘art  in  an
\nillegal\t strike.   Each appellant was  sentenced  to  simple
\nimprisonment for three months.\tOn appeal by the appellants,
\nthe learned Additional Sessions Judge of Asansol,  confirmed
\nthe order of the learned Magistrate.  A petition to the High
\nCourt\tat  Calcutta  against  the  order  of  the   learned
\nAdditional  Sessions Judge by way of revision  also  failed.
\nThe appellants have now appealed to this Court with  special
\nleave.\t The respondent to this appeal is the State of\tWest
\nBengal and the Company has been allowed to intervene.
\nThe Company owns a factory at Burnpur near Asansol in  which
\nthere  is  a Sheet Mill.  The factory was  declared  by\t the
\nGovernment  to\tbe a public utility service.   There  was  a
\nslow-down strike in the Hot Mill section of the Sheet  Mill.
\nThe  Company thereupon issued charge-sheets to some  of\t its
\nworkers,  including the four appellants in  its\t employment,
\nfor  taking  part in the slow-down  strike  and\t instigating
\nothers to join it as also for other misconduct and
\n322<\/span>
\nafter  an  enquiry,  dismissed these  four  appellants\tfrom
\nservice.  On such dismissal the slow-down strike  gained  in
\nstrength.  Thereupon, on April 8, 1953, the  Company  issued
\na notice to the workers of the Hot Mill the relevant portion
\nof which is set out below:\n<\/p>\n
“The  workers  of  the Hot Mills (Sheet\t Mills)\t are  hereby
\nnotified   that\t  unless  they\tvoluntarily   record   their
\nwillingness to operate the plant to its normal capacity they
\nwill be considered to be no longer employed by the  Company,
\nafter  which the Company will recruit -other labour  to\t man
\nthe Plant.\n<\/p>\n
The  workers  must record their willingness  before  Friday,
\n10th April, 2-0 p.m., otherwise action as stated above\twill
\nbe taken.”\n<\/p>\n
As  a  result of this notice forty workers of the  Hot\tMill
\nrecorded  their\t willingness but the rest,  who\t were  about
\nthree  hundred in number, did not make any response at\tall.
\nIn fact, on April 11, 1953, the workers in the entire  Sheet
\nMill numbering about one thousand and three hundred, went on
\na sit-down strike which lasted till April 20, 1953.
\nOn April 25, 1953, the Company issued another notice to\t the
\nworkers which is set out below:\n<\/p>\n
” In accordance with General Manager’s Notice dated the\t 8th
\nApril,\t1953,  you  have been considered  to  be  no  longer
\nemployed by the Company after 2 p.m. on Friday, 10th  April,
\n1953,  as  you did not record your willingness\tbefore\tthat
\ndate  and time to operate the Plant to its normal  capacity.
\nYour  formal discharge from Company’s service bad been\tkept
\npending\t in order to assure to the fullest that no  one\t who
\nwanted\t to   work  normally,  was   being   discharged\t  on
\ncircumstantial assumptions.\n<\/p>\n
Now,  however, there are no further reasons to believe\tthat
\nevery one concerned has not all necessary information  about
\nthe  facts  of\tthe case and every  opportunity\t to  form  a
\ncorrect and legitimate opinion on the utterly  irresponsible
\nattitude adopted by some of the workers.\n<\/p>\n
A  copy of the notice dated the 22nd April, 1953, issued  by
\nthe Directorate of Labour, Government of
\n\t\t\t    323<\/span>
\nWest  Bengal, which has already been widely  circulated,  is
\nattached herewith, in English with translations in  Bengali,
\nHindi and Urdu.\n<\/p>\n
You  are, therefore, hereby given a final Notice that if  by
\n11  a.m.  on  28th  April, 1953,  you  do  not\trecord\tyour
\nwillingness  to\t operath the Plant to its  normal  capacity,
\nyour  name will be removed from the Company’s Roll and\tyour
\ndischarge   will  become  fully\t effective  with   all\t the
\nimplications of a discharge on grounds of serious breach  of
\ndiscipline.’ and your place will be filled by promotion from
\namongst the existing men or by engaging new men.”
\nAfter this notice the workers of the entire factory,  except
\nthose  engaged\tin essential services, went on a  strike  on
\nApril 27,1953, which lasted for twenty two hours.
\nOn  May 19, 1953, the Company filed a complaint under s.  27
\nof  the Act with the sanction of the Government\t granted  on
\nMay  2,\t 1953.\t Out of this complaint\tthe  present  appeal
\narises.\t The respondent’s case is that the strikes of  April
\n11, to April 20, 1953, and April 27, 1953, were illegal\t and
\nthe appellants had instigated them.  The appellants have not
\nin  this  Court challenged the finding of the  Courts  below
\nthat  the  strikes took place and that they  had  instigated
\nthem, but they contend that the strikes were not illegal.
\nSection 27 of the Act provides that a person who  instigates
\nor  incites  others to take part in, or\t otherwise  acts  in
\nfurtherance  of\t a strike, which is illegal under  the\tAct,
\ncommits\t an  offence.\tThe respondent’s case  is  that\t the
\nstrikes\t were  illegal\tunder  s. 24(1)\t of  the  Act  which
\nprovides that a strike or a lock-out shall be illegal if  it
\nis  commenced or declared in contravention of s. 22.   There
\nis  no dispute that the strikes were in contravention of  s.\n<\/p>\n
22.  The appellants rely on s. 24(3) of the Act under  which
\na  strike  declared in consequence of  an  illegal  lock-out
\nshall  not be deemed to be illegal and say that the  strikes
\nhad  been  in  consequence of an  illegal  lock-out  by\t the
\nCompany of the three hundred workers of the Hot
\n324<\/span>
\nMill  by the notices of April 8, and April 25.\tIt is  clear
\nthat   if  there  was  such  a\tlock-out,  it  was   illegal
\nunder  s. 24(1) for it would be clearly in contravention  of
\ns.  22.\n<\/p>\n
The   question\tthen  is,  was\tthere  a  lock-out  by\t the
\nCompany?   The\tlearned Advocate for  the  appellants  first
\ncontends that the notices use the same words as are used  in
\nthe  definition\t of  a lock-out in s. 2(1) of  the  Act\t and
\ntherefore  by those notices the Company locked-out the\tmen.
\nWe think that this argument is unfounded.  The definition so
\nfar as is material reads, ” lock-out means the refusal by an
\nemployer to continue to employ any number of persons employ-
\ned by him.” In the notices the words are ” considered to  be
\nno  longer employed ” while the definition uses the words  ”
\nrefusal\t by the employer to continue to employ.”  Therefore,
\nthe words are not the same.  Furthermore, the words used  in
\nthe  notices and in the definition have to be read in  their
\nrespective contexts.  For reasons to appear later, the words
\nused in the notices meant a discharge of the employees\tfrom
\nservice\t while\tthe  words used in  the\t definition  do\t not
\ncontemplate such a discharge of the workmen.
\nThe  Courts  below have come to the finding  that  by  these
\nnotices\t the  three  hundred workers of the  Hot  Mill\twere
\ndischarged  on April 10, 1953, and had not been\t locked-out.
\nThe  learned Advocate for the appellants says that  in\tthis
\nthe  Courts were wrong.\t He puts his arguments in two  ways.
\nFirst,\the says that the notices did not effect a  discharge
\ntill  April 28, 1953, and they had in the meantime  resulted
\nin  a  lockout of the workers from April 10,  1953,  in\t the
\nsense  that their services had not been terminated but\tthey
\nhad  not  been allowed to attend to their duties.   Then  he
\nsays  that  even if the notices effected a  discharge,\tthen
\nalso  there  was a lock-out, for a discharge  is  equally  a
\nlock-out within the meaning of its definition in the Act  as
\nthe prevention by an employer of the workers from  attending
\nto their duties without discharging them, is.
\nDid the notices then effect a discharge ? We agree with\t the
\nCourts below that they did.  The learned
\n\t\t\t    325<\/span>
\nAdvocate  for the appellants contends that the\ttwo  notices
\ntaken  together\t make it perfectly clear that there  was  no
\ndischarge  of  any employee prior to 11 a. m. of  April\t 28,
\n1953.\tHe says that the notice of April 25, shows that\t the
\nnotice\tof April 8, did not effect any discharge,  for,\t the
\nfirst  mentioned notice ,jays that the formal discharge\t had
\nbeen kept pending and it also required the workers to record
\ntheir  willingness  to\toperate\t the  plant  to\t its  normal
\ncapacity  by 11 a. m. on April 28, and further\tstated\tthat
\nfailing this their names would be removed from the Company’s
\nroll and their discharge would become fully effective.
\nWe are unable to read the notices in the way suggested.\t The
\nnotice\tof April 8, clearly stated that unless\tthe  workers
\nnotified  their\t willingness  to operate the  plant  to\t its
\nnormal\tcapacity  by  2 p. m. on April\t10,  they  would  be
\nconsidered to be no longer in the employment of the Company.
\nIt  plainly  meant  that  on their  failure  to\t record\t the
\nwillingness  by the time mentioned, the workers would  cease
\nto  be in the employment of the Company, that is,  in  other
\nwords,\tdischarged.  Taken by itself, we do not think it  is
\ncapable\t of any other meaning.\tWe are also unable to  agree
\nthat  there  is anything in the notice of  April  25,  which
\nwould  show that a different meaning ought to be put on\t the
\nwords  used  in the notice of April 8,\tthan  they  normally
\nbear.\tThe  later notice also states that the\tworkers\t bad
\nbeen  considered  to be no longer employed  from  April\t 10.
\nHence  it maintains that the workers had been discharged  on
\nApril  10.  It no doubt says that the formal  discharge\t had
\nbeen kept pending but that only means, as is clear from\t the
\nlast paragraph of the notice, that the names of the  workers
\nhad  not  been removed from the Company’s  roll.   The\tword
\n“formal”  must have its due meaning; it emphasises that\t the
\nreal  discharge had already taken place.  We may also  state
\nthat  it has not been contended before us that there can  be
\nno  discharge till a worker’s name is removed from the\troll
\nand,  without  more,  we do not think  that  we\t would\thave
\naccepted  that contention if made.  The removal of the\tname
\nof a worker from the roll follows his discharge and that is
\n42<\/span>
\n326<\/span>
\nwhat  was  meant by the statement in the notice ”  that\t the
\nformal\tdischarge had been kept pending.”\n<\/p>\n
The circumstances which led to the issuing of the notice  of
\nApril  25  also\t show that the\tworkers\t had  actually\tbeen
\ndischarged  on\tApril 10.  What had  happened was  that\t the
\nLabour\tMinister  of  the  Government  of  West\t Bengal\t had
\nintervened  in\tthe  dispute between  the  Company  and\t its
\nworkers.  He met the workers and on April 21, 1953, that is,
\nafter  the  termination\t of the first of  the  two  strikes,
\nsuggested  certain terms for the settlement of the  dispute.
\nHis  suggestion was that ” if the workers of the Hot  Mills,
\nwho  stand  discharged from 2 p.m. of April 10, 1953,  as  a
\nconsequence  of their disregarding the notice issued on\t 8th
\nApril,\t1953,  report themselves for  duty  immediately\t and
\nrecord their willingness to operate the plant to its  normal
\ncapacity, the Government would recommend their reinstatement
\nto the Management.” A copy of this suggestion was  forwarded
\nto the Company by the Government with a request to implement
\nthe  recommendations contained in it with a further  request
\nto  give  the  suggestion a  wide  publicity.\tThe  company
\ncirculated  the\t Labour\t Minister’s  suggestion\t among\t the
\nworkers\t and to comply with his request to implement it,  it
\nissued\tthe  notice  of April 25, to which  a  copy  of\t the
\nsuggestion  was attached.  It is, therefore, clear that\t all
\nthat  the Company intended to do by the notice of April\t 25,
\nwas  to\t comply with the Government’s suggestion and  so  to
\ncancel\tthe discharge of the workers of the Hot\t Mill  which
\nhad already taken effect and reinstate them in their  former
\nemployments  if\t the workers carried out their part  of\t the
\nsuggestion.   This notice, therefore, does not\tsupport\t the
\ncontention  that  the workers had not been  discharged\ttill
\nApril 28, 1953.\n<\/p>\n
We may also state that there is no evidence that prior to  2
\np.m.  of April 10, 1953, any employee had been prevented  by
\nthe Company from attending to his duty.\n<\/p>\n
The next question is whether a discharge of employees by  an
\nemployer  amounts to a lock-out.  It is said that the  words
\nused in the definition of a lock-out,
\n\t\t\t    327<\/span>
\nnamely,\t “the refusal by an employer to continue  to  employ
\nany  number of persons employed by him’ cover the  discharge
\nof  employees by an employer.  The contention so raised\t was
\nrejected by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Presidency Jute
\nMills.\t Co.  Ltd. v. Presidency Jute  Mills  Co.  Employees
\nUnion<\/a>  (1).  We are in entire agreement with the view  there
\nexpressed.\n<\/p>\n
It seems to us that to construe the definition as  including
\na discharge would be against the entire tenor of the Act and
\nalso  against  the meaning of a lock-out  as  understood  in
\nindustrial relations.\n<\/p>\n
By virtue of s. 22 of the Act, in a public utility  ,service
\nno worker can go on strike nor can an employer lock-out\t his
\nworkmen\t without  giving  notice of strike  or\tof  lock-out
\nwithin\tsix weeks before the strike or lock-out as the\tcase
\nmay be or within fourteen days of such notice or before\t the
\ndate  fixed  in such notice or during the  pendency  of\t any
\nconciliation  proceedings before a conciliation officer\t and
\nseven  days  after  the\t conclusion  thereof.\tSection\t  23
\nprohibits   strikes  and  lock-outs  in\t  other\t  industrial
\nestablishments\t during\t  the\tpendency   of\tconciliation
\nproceedings  before a Board and for seven  days\t thereafter.
\nSection 24(1) makes a strike and a lock-out in contravention
\nof ss. 10, 22 and 23, illegal.\tSection 24(2) provides\tthat
\na strike declared in consequence of an illegal lock-out\t and
\na  lock-out  declared in consequence of\t an  illegal  strike
\nshall not be illegal.  Section 25 prohibits the spending  of
\nmoney on illegal strikes and lock-outs.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act therefore treats strikes and lock-outs on the\tsame
\nbasis;\tit  treats one as the counterpart of the  other.   A
\nstrike\tis a weapon of the workers while a lock-out that  of
\nthe employer.  A strike does not, of course, contemplate the
\nseverance of the relation of employer and employed; it would
\nbe strange in these circumstances if a lock-out did so.
\nUnder the provisions of s. 22, a lock-out cannot be declared
\nin a public utility service immediately; it can be  declared
\nonly  after  the  date fixed in the  notice  and  cannot  be
\ndeclared  within fourteen days of the giving of the  notice.
\nNow, if a discharge is included in a
\n(1)  [1952] L A.C. 62.\n<\/p>\n
328<\/span><\/p>\n
lock-out, an employer in such a service cannot discharge his
\nemployee, except after the time specified.  Now, that  would
\noften make it impossible for the   employer to carry on\t his
\nbusiness.   It\tis  conceivable\t  that an  employee  may  be
\nguilty\tof such misconduct that his immediate  discharge  is
\nessential.   Indeed., there is no reason to think that\tsuch
\ncases  would  be   very infrequent.  In such a\tcase  if  an
\nemployer  is  prevented on pain\t of  being  made  criminally
\nliable under s. 27 from discharging the employee forthwith,
\nirreparable  mischief may be caused to his works or  serious
\npersonal injury -to himself or his other employees.  We have
\nno  reason  to think that the Act intended  such  a  result.
\nAgain, if a lock-out included a discharge, then there  would
\nbe  a conflict between ss. 22 and 23 on the one hand and  s.
\n33 on the other.  As has already been stated, ss. 22 and  23
\nprohibit  a lock-out of workers during the pendency  of\t the
\nconciliation proceedings, therein mentioned, and seven\tdays
\nthereafter. According to the interpretation suggested by the
\nlearned\t Advocate  for the appellants, during this  time  no
\nworker could at all be discharged for a lock-out includes  a
\ndischarge,  it being remembered that the prohibition in\t the
\nsection\t is absolute.  Under s. 33 however, an\temployer  is
\nprohibited during the pendency of a conciliation proceeding,
\nfrom discharging a workman concerned in the dispute for\t any
\nmisconduct connected with such dispute save with the express
\npermission  of the authority before whom the  proceeding  is
\npending.   So if a lock out includes a discharge, under\t ss.
\n22 and 23 there can be no discharge during the\tconciliation
\nproceedings  while under s. 33 there could be one  with\t the
\npermission of the authority conducting the proceeding.\tIf a
\ndischarge  amounted  to a lock-out, an absurd  result  would
\nthus be produced.\n<\/p>\n
By an amendment made on October 2, 1953, certain  provisions
\nhave  been introduced into the Act which would show  clearly
\nthat  a\t lock-out as defined in s. 2(1), which\tsection\t has
\nbeen left unaltered by the amendment, was never intended  to
\ninclude a discharge of
\n\t\t\t    329<\/span>
\nworkmen.   We  refer  first  to s.  2(oo)  by  which  a\t new
\ndefinition  was\t introduced in the Act which, so far  as  is
\nnecessary  for\tthe  present purpose,  is  in  these  words:
\nRetrenchment  means the termination by the employer  of\t the
\nservice\t of  a workman for any reason  whatsoever  otherwise
\nthan  as  a  punishment inflicted  bY  way  of\tdisciplinary
\naction.\n<\/p>\n
If  lock-out  includes\ta discharge,  then  retrenchment  as
\ndefined\t in  s.\t 2(oo) would also  clearly  be\ta  lock-out.
\nObviously, if that were so, then retrenchment would not have
\nbeen  separately  defined.   Again,  tinder  s.\t 25F,\talso
\nintroduced  into the Act by the amendment, a workman may  be
\nretrenched by paying him wages for a month, the compensation
\nprovided, and on notice to the Government.  If\tretrenchment
\nwas  a form of lockout, then there would clearly be  a\tcon-
\nflict  between ss. 22 and 23 on the one hand and s.  25F  on
\nthe other.  Section 2(oo) and s. 25F were, no doubt, not  in
\nthe  Act  at  the  date of the notices\twith  which  we\t are
\nconcerned,  but\t since s. 2(1) was not amended\tit  must  be
\ntaken that its meaning remained after the amendment what  it
\nwas before.  Since the amendment made it clear that s.\t2(1)
\ndid  not  include  a  retrenchment,  it\t follows  that\tthat
\ndefinition  did\t not  include a retrenchment  prior  to\t the
\namendment.   If\t it  did not then  include  a  retrenchment,
\nneither\t could\tit  include a  discharge,  for,\t plainly,  a
\nretrenchment is but one form of discharge.
\nIt,  therefore, seems to us that the words ” refusal  by  an
\nemployer  to  continue\tto  employ  any\t number\t of  persons
\nemployed by him ” in s. 2(1) do not include the discharge of
\nan employee.  We feel no difficulty in taking this view, for
\nit  does not seem to us that the words “refusal to  continue
\nto  employ” in s. 2(1) plainly include a  discharge.   These
\nwords  have to be read with the rest of the  definition\t and
\nalso  the word lock-out.  The other parts of the  definition
\ncontemplate  no\t severance of the relation of  employer\t and
\nemployed.   The\t word  ”  lock-out  “,\tas  stated  in\t the
\nPresidency Jute Mills Co’s case (1), in its dictionary sense
\nmeans refusal on the part of an employer to furnish work  to
\nhis operatives except on conditions to
\n(1)  [1952] L.A.C. 62.\n<\/p>\n
330<\/span><\/p>\n
be  accepted by the latter collectively.   Therefore,  inour
\nopinion,   the\trules  of  interpretation  do  not   prevent
\nus  from  giving  to the words used in\tthe  definition\t the
\nmeaning\t  ”  a\trefusal\t by  the  employer  to\t allow\t any
\nnumber of persons employed by him to attend to their  duties
\nwithout\t effecting a termination of service as was  done  in
\nthe Presidency Jute Mills Co’s case (1),  which would  avoid
\none part of the Act coming in conflict with another.
\nThe  last  point  raised  is  about  the  propriety  of\t the
\nsanction.  Section 34(1) of the Act provides,
\nNo  court  shall take cognisance of any\t offence  punishable
\nunder  this  Act    save on complaint made by or  under\t the
\nauthority of the ap. propriate Government.
\nThe   learned  Advocate\t for  the  appellants\trelying\t  on
\nGokalchand  Dwarkadas  Morarka\tv. The\tKing  (2),  where  a
\nprovision somewhat similar to s. 34(1) was considered by the
\nJudicial  Committee, contended that the sanction granted  in
\nthe  present  case by the Government of the West  Bengal  to
\nfile the complaint against the appellants was bad as it\t had
\nbeen granted without reference to the facts constituting the
\noffence.  It is true that the sanction does not on the\tface
\nof  it refer to the facts constituting the  offence.   There
\nis,  however, ample evidence in this case, which we did\t not
\nunderstand  the\t learned  Advocate  for\t the  appellants  to
\nchallenge  and\twhich clearly establishes  that\t the  entire
\nfacts connected with the offence had been placed before\t the
\nsanctioning authority and the sanction had been granted on a
\nconsideration  of them.\t The Judicial committee in the\tcase
\nabove-mentioned\t itself observed that the sanction would  be
\ngood  if it was proved by evidence that it had been  granted
\nafter  all  the necessary facts had been placed\t before\t the
\nsanctioning authority though these facts might not have been
\nstated\ton  the face of the sanction itself.   It  therefore
\nseems  to  us  that  the sanction in  the  present  case  is
\nunobjectionable.\n<\/p>\n
We feel, therefore, that the appeal must fail.\tWe think  it
\nright however in the circumstances of this case and in\tview
\nof the long lapse of time since the
\n(1) [1952] L.A.C. 62.\t     (1948) L.R. 75 I.A. 30.\n<\/p>\n
331<\/span><\/p>\n
case started, to modify the sentence passed.  In our view, a
\nsentence  of  simple  imprisonment for\tthe  period  already
\nserved and a fine of Rs. 100 with simple imprisonment for  a
\nperiod of fifteen days in default of payment of the fine for
\neach appellant will be sufficient in this case and we  order
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Subject to this modification of the sentence, this appeal is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 363, 1960 SCR (2) 319 Author: A Sarkar Bench: Sarkar, A.K. PETITIONER: FEROZ DIN AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/11\/1959 BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFeroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1959-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-08T08:38:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T08:38:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959\"},\"wordCount\":3671,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959\",\"name\":\"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T08:38:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-08T08:38:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959","datePublished":"1959-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T08:38:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959"},"wordCount":3671,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959","name":"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T08:38:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/feroz-din-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-november-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Feroz Din And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 November, 1959"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239501","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=239501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}