A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court judgment, Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., significantly interpreted the legal contours of “strike” under Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and its implications on Section 49-B of the Indian Factories Act, 1934. The case arose when 859 workers from the night shift of the Carnatic Mills ceased work for a few hours in protest against the denial of a holiday on account of a solar eclipse. The management deemed this a strike and denied paid holidays. The Labour Appellate Tribunal overruled the adjudicator’s findings, holding that such short-term absence did not constitute a “strike”. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the Tribunal’s decision, affirming the adjudicator’s view that the workers’ concerted cessation amounted to an illegal strike which interrupted their continuity of service. Consequently, they lost eligibility for paid holidays. The Court’s analysis provides crucial jurisprudential guidance on what constitutes a “strike,” the significance of notice in public utility services, and the consequences of illegal industrial action on statutory benefits. The judgment has become a precedent in determining the legality and effects of brief but collective industrial actions.

Keywords: Illegal Strike, Industrial Disputes Act, Indian Factories Act, Public Utility Service, Continuity of Service, Paid Holidays, Concerted Action.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd.

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1952

iii) Judgement Date: December 2, 1952

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, Justice Das, and Justice Bhagwati

vi) Author: Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan

vii) Citation: (1953) SCR 219

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 2(q), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

• Section 49-B, Indian Factories Act, 1934

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): Decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, dated June 27, 1951

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Labour Law, Industrial Relations, Statutory Interpretation

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present case arose from industrial unrest at Carnatic Mills in Madras, where 859 workers from the night shift collectively refused to work for a few hours in protest. Their demand for a holiday on account of a solar eclipse was denied. The dispute centred around whether this coordinated refusal to work constituted a “strike” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and if so, whether the workers forfeited their entitlement to paid leave under Section 49-B(1) of the Indian Factories Act, 1934. The Labour Appellate Tribunal had reversed the initial finding of illegality, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. The case presents a seminal moment in the delineation of “strike” and the statutory ramifications that follow.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On November 1, 1948, 859 workers of the carding and spinning department in Carnatic Mills stopped work during their night shift between 4 PM and 8 PM. Their protest was triggered by the management’s refusal to declare a half-day holiday on the occasion of a solar eclipse. Despite attempts by the management and the union representatives to convince the workers to resume duty, the workers refused. Eventually, the strike ended by 10 PM. Subsequently, the management issued a notice declaring the strike as illegal and denied the workers their statutory paid leave under Section 49-B of the Factories Act. This denial prompted a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, followed by adjudication by the Second Industrial Tribunal, Madras, which held the strike illegal. However, the Labour Appellate Tribunal overturned this decision, leading to the current appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the few hours’ work stoppage by the night-shift workers constituted a “strike” under Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

ii) Whether such a strike, being unnotified, qualified as an illegal strike under the Act.

iii) Whether participation in an illegal strike interrupted the workers’ “continuous service” under Section 49-B of the Indian Factories Act, 1934, thereby disqualifying them from availing paid holidays.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Petitioner/Appellant submitted that:

The action taken by the workers clearly satisfied the legal definition of a “strike” under Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workers stopped work collectively, acted in combination, and refused to resume duties without any valid authorisation. There was no individual grievance or personal incapacity. The stoppage was orchestrated, deliberate, and without prior notice as required in public utility services. Since the textile industry was notified as a public utility service, the workers were under a legal obligation to provide notice before striking. The absence of such notice rendered the strike illegal under Section 22 of the Act.

Furthermore, the Appellant contended that Section 49-B(1) of the Indian Factories Act grants holidays only to workers who complete twelve months of uninterrupted service. The proviso explicitly mentions that “illegal strikes” are not exempted from the causes that break continuity of service. Since the workers engaged in an illegal strike, they disqualified themselves from earning paid holidays.

The management’s action of denying full holidays was well within legal bounds. Any act of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to reduce the penalty or to disregard the illegal nature of the strike amounted to a misapplication of the law and a misinterpretation of the statute.

In support, they referred to Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen (AIR 1955 SC 604) which established that illegal strikes break continuity and workers lose entitlements during that period[1].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The refusal to work was spontaneous and minor, lasting only a few hours. It lacked the formal planning or notice that characterises a strike. The tribunal erred in holding the workers liable for forfeiture of paid leave based on such a short, temporary absence. The workers’ conduct amounted to mere absence or non-permitted leave for a limited period, not an industrial strike.

Further, they contended that under the earlier rules of the mills, the workers were entitled to privilege leave. Since the government had exempted the mill under a 1946 notification from Chapter IV-A of the Factories Act, they argued that Sections 49-A and 49-B did not apply. Thus, no disqualification for paid leave could arise from the events of November 1, 1948.

Additionally, they argued that the adjudicator’s reduction of punishment by 50% was fair and within discretionary powers, considering the minimal nature of the incident.

They relied on Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Workers (AIR 1963 SC 569) where it was held that minor infractions must not lead to disproportionate penalties[2].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Defines “strike” as a cessation of work by a body of persons acting in combination or a concerted refusal to continue to work.

ii) Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Mandates notice before a strike in public utility services.

iii) Section 49-B(1) of the Indian Factories Act, 1934: Grants annual leave with pay to workers who have completed 12 months of uninterrupted service.

iv) Explanation to Section 49-B: Clarifies that interruptions due to certain conditions do not affect continuity, but excludes illegal strikes from this immunity.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that the work stoppage constituted a “strike” under Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The collective refusal to work by 859 employees amounted to concerted action. The strike was illegal as the textile mill was a public utility and no prior notice was given, as required under Section 22. Therefore, under Section 49-B of the Factories Act, this illegal strike broke the continuity of service.

The workers, consequently, lost the statutory right to annual paid leave. The Court also observed that the Labour Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that a few hours’ absence could not amount to a strike. Legal definitions are not time-bound. If the ingredients of collective action are fulfilled, it constitutes a strike irrespective of duration.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court appreciated the ex gratia gesture made by the management to not treat the strike night as a disqualification for holidays. It encouraged the workers to respond positively, highlighting the value of industrial harmony and goodwill.

c. GUIDELINES 

• A strike need not be of long duration to be a strike.

• In public utility services, absence of notice makes any strike illegal.

• Illegal strikes interrupt continuous service under the Factories Act.

• Tribunals cannot override statutory consequences by reducing penalties.

• Statutory definitions must be strictly interpreted irrespective of practical hardships.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This landmark judgment clarified and strengthened the interpretation of strike-related provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its interface with the Indian Factories Act, 1934. It emphasized that the legal character of a strike is defined not by its duration but by its nature and context. By enforcing the statutory definition of “strike” and “continuous service”, the Court upheld the sanctity of industrial discipline and legality. The decision reflects a strict constructionist approach where statutory entitlements cannot survive illegality.

The judgment is significant for managements and unions alike. It underscores the need for procedural compliance even during spontaneous worker actions. While the Court appreciated the management’s conciliatory stance, it affirmed that legal obligations cannot be bypassed under the guise of equity. The case thus becomes a keystone in industrial jurisprudence, especially on the scope and consequences of illegal strikes.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1955 SC 604
[2] Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Workers, AIR 1963 SC 569

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2(q), 22

• Indian Factories Act, 1934, Section 49-B

• Constitution of India, Article 136

[2] Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Workers, AIR 1963 SC 569

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2(q), 22

• Indian Factories Act, 1934, Section 49-B

• Constitution of India, Article 136