North Brook Jute Co. Ltd. v. Workmen — AIR 1960 SC 879

Quick Summary

The mills introduced a rationalisation scheme during a pending dispute. The Works Committee had agreed, but the union opposed. When workers refused added work, the mills shut down (lockout).

The Supreme Court said the employer breached Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by changing service conditions mid-dispute. The lockout was illegal. Workers were entitled to wages for that period. Also, a Works Committee is not a bargaining agent; it cannot replace the union for major changes.

Issues

• Are the workmen entitled to wages for the closure/lockout period?
• Do the functions of a Works Committee include collective bargaining?

Rules

• The Works Committee under Section 3(b) aims to promote good relations and settle minor issues; it is not a substitute for unions or a vehicle for collective bargaining.
• Changing service conditions during a pending dispute contravenes Section 33. A resulting lockout is illegal; wages are payable for that period.

Facts (Timeline)

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the mills’ appeal. It affirmed the Tribunal’s view that Section 33 was contravened and the lockout was illegal.

The Court further held that the Works Committee’s agreement was not binding on workmen/union and that collective bargaining lies outside the Committee’s statutory role.

Ratio Decidendi

Two principles: (1) Works Committee handles goodwill and minor issues; it cannot do collective bargaining or approve major adverse changes. (2) Implementing change during a pending dispute breaches Section 33; a lockout in such a context is illegal and wages are payable.

Why It Matters

• Draws a clear line between Works Committee and union roles.
• Protects workers against unilateral changes during disputes.
• Clarifies that wages follow when a lockout is illegal.

Key Takeaways

• Works Committee ≠ collective bargaining agent.
• No service-condition change during a pending dispute (Section 33).
• Illegal lockout → wages due for the closure period.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “WC ≠ UNION; S33 = STOP”

1. Identify: Is there a pending dispute?
2. Check: Is the change major (affects workload/strength/pay)?
3. Conclude: During pendency, don’t change. Works Committee consent won’t cure it.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Works Committee

Employer–employee body to improve relations and fix minor day-to-day frictions.

Section 33 (ID Act)

Bars altering service conditions to workers’ prejudice during a pending proceeding.

Lockout

Employer’s temporary closure/refusal of employment; illegal if it violates the Act.

FAQs

Related Cases

• Chandra Bhavan Boarding & Lodging v. State of Mysore — role of wage regulation.
• Standard Vacuum v. Their Workmen — bonus and living wage gap.

Publication Details