Rohtas Industries v. Union
(1976) 2 SCC 82 Bench: Supreme Court
Quick Summary
Workers at Rohtas Industries went on an illegal strike. Arbitrators later asked workers to pay the company for losses. The courts said this was not allowed.
- Main point: Compensation for strike losses is not an “industrial dispute” under the IDA unless it is part of the referred dispute.
- Union immunity: Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act protects unions for acts in a trade dispute.
Issues
- Can a trade union be held liable for damages from an illegal strike?
- Are employer compensation claims covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
- Did the arbitrators exceed their jurisdiction by granting compensation?
Rules
- Unions, as collective bodies, are protected by Section 18, Trade Unions Act for acts in a trade dispute.
- Employer claims for compensation are not industrial disputes under the IDA, 1947, unless specifically part of the referred dispute.
- Arbitration under IDA cannot award compensation outside the Act’s scope.
Facts (Timeline)
CASE_TITLE- Workers at Rohtas Industries went on strike without following the IDA process; Tribunal declared the strike illegal.
- Both sides later signed a memorandum to settle the core issues; a Board of Arbitrators (incl. two retired judges) was appointed.
- Arbitrators awarded compensation to management for strike losses.
- The union challenged the compensation part; High Court quashed it for lack of jurisdiction.
- Management appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Appellant (Management)
- Illegal strike caused heavy loss; workers should compensate.
- Arbitrators could grant such relief within the overall dispute.
Respondent (Union)
- Compensation is outside IDA; not an industrial dispute.
- Section 18 TUA gives immunity; arbitrators exceeded power.
Judgment
Held- No compensation under IDA: Such claims are not industrial disputes unless specifically referred.
- Arbitrators exceeded jurisdiction: Compensation part of the award is invalid.
- Union immunity: Section 18 TUA protects unions for acts tied to a trade dispute.
- Appeal dismissed: High Court order upheld; no costs.
Ratio Decidendi
Employer claims for monetary loss from a strike are generally outside the IDA framework and cannot be granted by IDA arbitration. Union acts in pursuit of a trade dispute enjoy statutory immunity.
Why It Matters
- Defines clear limits on compensation claims during strikes.
- Protects collective action while keeping arbitration within the IDA.
- Guides HR, unions, and tribunals on jurisdiction boundaries.
Key Takeaways
- Union not liable to pay strike-loss compensation under IDA.
- Arbitrators cannot award compensation beyond the Act.
- Section 18 TUA shields unions in trade disputes.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “I-D-A? N-O-P!” — IDA can’t award Compensation; Not an industrial dispute; Outside jurisdiction; Protected by TUA §18.
- Ask: Is compensation part of the referred dispute?
- Check: If not, IDA arbitration has no power.
- Conclude: Union immunity applies; no damages.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Union liability for strike losses and IDA power to award compensation.
Rule
IDA covers industrial disputes; compensation not included unless referred; TUA §18 grants immunity.
Application
Compensation claim arose from illegal strike but was not part of the referred dispute; arbitrators overreached.
Conclusion
Compensation direction set aside; union not liable; appeal dismissed.
Glossary
- Industrial Dispute
- A conflict about employment terms, rights, or conditions recognized by the IDA.
- Section 18, TUA
- Gives unions immunity for acts done in contemplation/furtherance of a trade dispute.
- Illegal Strike
- Strike that breaches IDA procedures; still does not create automatic compensation liability under IDA.
FAQs
Related Cases
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now