A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India, in Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 1011, resolved the legal question concerning the illegality of a strike by employees of a public utility concern under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that when conciliation proceedings are pending between an employer and one trade union, a strike initiated by members of a rival union covering the same body of workers constitutes an illegal strike under Section 22(1)(d) read with Section 24(1)(i) of the Act. The Court clarified that a settlement reached in conciliation binds all workers under Section 18(3)(d), irrespective of their union affiliation. The decision also addressed the implications of such a strike under the West Bengal Security Act, 1950, where an illegal strike is deemed a subversive act punishable under Section 11. The Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal and affirmed that such strikes, even if motivated by legitimate grievances, undermine statutory conciliation mechanisms and industrial peace.

Keywords: Industrial Disputes Act, Illegal Strike, Public Utility, Conciliation, Subversive Act, West Bengal Security Act

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty and Others

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1959

iii) Judgement Date
May 5, 1960

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, and K. C. Das Gupta, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar

vii) Citation
AIR 1960 SC 1011; [1960] 3 SCR 968

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 18(3)(d), 22(1)(d), 24(1)(i)

• West Bengal Security Act, 1950: Sections 2(9)(e), 11

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Labour Law, Industrial Law, Criminal Law, Public Utility Services Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment stemmed from a dispute involving two rival unions within a sugar manufacturing unit, categorized as a public utility concern. The crux was whether a strike by members of one union during conciliation proceedings initiated by another union could be deemed legal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The West Bengal Security Act also penalized “subversive acts,” including illegal strikes. The Calcutta High Court earlier acquitted the workers, accepting their defense that they did not participate in the conciliation proceedings and therefore were not bound by its outcome. The Supreme Court’s intervention clarified the legislative intent behind Section 18(3)(d), reinforcing the doctrine of binding settlements during conciliation on the entire workforce. It thereby harmonized industrial peace with lawful dissent mechanisms under statutory frameworks.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd., a public utility undertaking, employed a large number of permanent and seasonal workers at its sugar factory in Plassey, Nadia. Two rival unions represented these workers: the Employees’ Union (majority) and the Workers’ Union (minority). On 9 December 1953, the Workers’ Union submitted a charter of demands. On 20 January 1954, the Employees’ Union submitted a similar charter and simultaneously, the Workers’ Union issued a strike notice. Conciliation proceedings commenced involving the Employees’ Union. Despite being notified, the Workers’ Union refused joint deliberation and declared conciliation as failed. The Workers’ Union began a strike on 13 February 1954. However, on 25 February 1954, the appellant company reached a settlement with the Employees’ Union during conciliation. Consequently, criminal proceedings were initiated under Section 11 of the West Bengal Security Act, charging the workers with engaging in subversive activity by participating in an illegal strike. The trial court acquitted them, and the Calcutta High Court upheld the acquittal. The company appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the strike commenced by the Workers’ Union on February 13, 1954, amounted to an illegal strike under Section 24(1)(i) read with Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

ii) Whether the settlement reached between the company and the Employees’ Union during conciliation proceedings was binding on all workmen under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

iii) Whether the said illegal strike amounted to a “subversive act” under Section 2(9)(e) of the West Bengal Security Act, 1950, thereby attracting criminal liability under Section 11 of the said Act.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the strike was illegal as it contravened Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They argued that conciliation proceedings were underway with the Employees’ Union and that Section 18(3)(d) renders any conciliation settlement binding on all workmen, including members of the rival union. Hence, the strike was unauthorized and unlawful. They emphasized that the strike violated the cooling-off period prescribed under Section 22(1)(d), as seven days had not lapsed post-conciliation. Further, they contended that this illegality met the criteria of a “subversive act” under Section 2(9)(e) of the West Bengal Security Act. They relied on precedents like The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1960] 3 SCR 157 and New India Motors (P) Ltd. v. K. T. Morris, [1960] 3 SCR 350, which dealt with similar interpretations of settlement binding and its consequences.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the strike was not illegal since the Workers’ Union had withdrawn from the conciliation proceedings and the officer had reported failure on February 3, 1954. Thus, no conciliation proceedings were pending with them on February 13, when the strike commenced. They argued that the Workers’ Union’s disengagement made the subsequent settlement irrelevant to them. The defense also emphasized that members of a union not party to the settlement could not be held criminally liable for breach of a proceeding they were no longer involved in.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Binding effect of conciliation settlements on all workmen in the establishment, not just union members.
View provision

ii) Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Prohibits strikes in public utility services during conciliation or seven days thereafter.
View provision

iii) Section 24(1)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Declares any strike in breach of Section 22 as illegal.
View provision

iv) Section 2(9)(e) and Section 11 of the West Bengal Security Act, 1950

Defines illegal strikes as subversive acts and provides punishment.
View provision (limited availability)

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) A strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings between the employer and one union is illegal under Section 22(1)(d) if the demands under conciliation are of common interest to all workers. Such a strike violates Section 24(1)(i) and constitutes a subversive act under Section 2(9)(e) of the West Bengal Security Act. Settlements under Section 18(3)(d) are binding on all employees, even if they are not members of the union that negotiated the settlement.

b. OBITER DICTA 
i) The Court noted that if unions pursue similar charters of demand covering all employees, then a settlement by one binds the entire workforce. This interpretation ensures industrial harmony and discourages fragmentation of worker unity.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Settlements made during conciliation must be treated as binding on all workers in the establishment.

• Industrial peace must be preserved by preventing rival unions from bypassing statutory dispute mechanisms.

• Illegal strikes during conciliation in public utilities are penalized under criminal law.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i) The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Porbandar v. Their Workmen, [1960] 3 SCR 157
ii) New India Motors (P) Ltd. v. K. T. Morris, [1960] 3 SCR 350
iii) Rangaswami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden, (1918) LR 46 IA 72
iv) Phool Kaur v. Prem Kaur, [1952] SCR 793
v) Mt. Hurmate v. Hoshiaru, AIR 1944 Lah 21
vi) Mohinder Singh v. Kher Singh, AIR 1949 EP 328

b. Important Statutes Referred
i) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 18, 22, 24
ii) West Bengal Security Act, 1950 – Sections 2(9)(e), 11