Patna High Court
State Of Bihar vs Ranen Nath And Ors. on 22 March, 1957
Equivalent citations: AIR1958PAT259, 1957(5)BLJR629, 1958CRILJ662, AIR 1958 PATNA 259, 1957 BLJR 629
JUDGMENT Banerji, J.
1. This appeal is on behalf of the State against an order of acquittal, dated 23rd of September, 1953 passed by Mr. S.C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna.
2. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail as the same has been done in Government Appeal No. 19 of 1953 which arose out of the same facts and which was heard along with the present one.
3. Shortly, it may be stated here that a dispute arose between the management of the Patna Electric Supply Company and their workmen, and this dispute was referred by the Government to an Industrial Tribunal in March 1952. The employees serving under the Company had a Union known as the Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union and respondent Sri Raman Roy was its President and respondent Sri Damodar Jha was its general Secretary.
The dispute, which was referred to Tribunal, was still pending, when, in November 1952, there was further dispute relating to allotment of quarters followed by a disturbance in presence of Sri R.N. Sharma, Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, in consequence of which Mr. A.V. Ramaswami, Chief Engineer of the Company, suspended several workers who were members of the Union. After this, Mr. Ramaswami (P. W, 1) received a notice from the Union intimating him that the workers were going to stage a token strike for 24 hours from 8 A. M. on 29th November, 1952, to 8 A. M. on 30th November, 1952. The intimation was made through a letter written by the General Secretary, Mr. Damodar Jha, P. W. 1 and the Government of Bihar in the Labour Department wrote to the Union that the strike would be illegal, but the strike was actually launched on the date and at the lime fixed by the Union.
4. Thereafter, the State Government decided to file a complaint against the persons who had joined in the strike. Mr. R.N. Sharma, the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, filed the complaint against the present respondents on the authority of the Government, stating all the facts therein. In the present matter the prosecution case was that the respondents did various acts in furtherance of the alleged illegal strike. Under the column "offence committed", it was stated as follows :
"Instigation and incitement to workmen of the Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. Patna to take part in an illegal strike or otherwise acting in furtherance thereof punishable under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)."
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate held :
1. There was an illegal lock-out.
2. The strike cannot be held to be illegal.
3. There was no necessity to discuss the merit of evidence on the aforesaid findings.
4. The prosecution had not been able to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
5a. The learned Judicial Magistrate, accordingly, acquitted the respondents, and the Government, thereafter, preferred this appeal.
6. It is not necessary to traverse the very same grounds which has been done in Government Appeal No. 19 of 1953. It has been held there that there was no lock-out of the workers of the Company and the Strike was an illegal one.
7. The only point to be decided in this appeal is whether the respondents had instigated or incited the workmen of the Company to take part in the strike and, accordingly, made themselves liable for the penalty under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
8. In the petition of complaint, it was stated on behalf of the prosecution as follows :
1. An extraordinary meeting of the Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union was held on 25th November, 1952, at which the Executive Committee resolved to launch 24 hours' token strike from a. m. on 29th November, 1952, to 8 a. m. on 30th November, 1952 unless the Company fulfilled certain demands.
2. On 27th November, 1952, a meeting of the workers of the Patna Electric Supply Company was held under the Presidentship of Sri Gurbachansingh, Vice President of the Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union. At this meeting, the workers were asked to go on strike from 8 a. m. on 29th to 8 a. m. on 30th November, 1952.
3. Another meeting of the Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union was held on 28th November, 1952, under the Presidentship of Shri Ranendra Nath Roy Choudhary alias Ranen Roy, President of the Union. At this general meeting of the Union, the decision taken by the Executive Committee on 25th November, 1952, was endorsed and the workers were asked to go on strike as decided by the Executive Committee.
4. These steps were taken by the Union in spite of the Warning given by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that the strike would be illegal.'
5. In fact the resolution was followed by a, strike by the workers on the date fixed. It was alleged that the strike was in pursuance of the decisions, directions, advice, incitement and instigation of the accused persons named under column No. 2.
9. It is significant that in the petition of complaint there was no whisper anywhere by what way and in what manner the respondents incited or instigated the workers to take part in the token strike. I have, therefore, to examine the evidence and find out whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of incitement and instigations on the part of the respondents as would make them liable under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act. P. W. 1 gave a history of the dispute between the workers and the Company and stated that the workers did strike on the date of which notice had been given.
He stated that he had gone to the main office in New Capital and found most of the staff absent. On the road, in the morning, at about 5.30 A. M. he saw two of the respondents, namely, Adhir Ghosh and Guru Bachan Singh, standing opposite to the Union office at Nithapur. He followed the statement by saying that he did not see Adhir Ghosh at work that day. P. W. 2, Sri Abid Khan, is a Sub-Inspector of Police. He attended a general meeting of the workers on 27th November, 1952 in connection with the proposed token strike.
This meeting was held under the Presidentship of Sri Guru Bachan Singh who addressed the meeting and asked the employees to go On strike from 8 A. M. on 29th November, 1952, to 8 A. M. on 30th November, 1952. He has deposed about another meeting of the workers on 28th November, 1952,' held under the Presidentship of Sri Ranen Roy Choudhury. In this meeting Sri Ranen Roy Choudhury asked the audience whether they were in favour of the token strike and, if so, they should first combine amongst themselves. P. W. 3, Sri Janardan Misra, is another Sub-Inspector of Police who was the officer-in-charge of Khajekalan Police Station on 29th November. 1952.
He saw a procession of 30 to 35 persons belonging to the Patna Electric Supply Company Workers' Union. Some of them were carrying a flag hanging from two bamboo poles and respondent Kusheshwar was shouting "bijli bati band karo; hamari mang pur ho; inqlab Zindabad P. W. 4 is the Assistant Labour Commissioner who has merely deposed that on the date of the strike, near the main office of the Patna Electric Supply Company, he saw Sri Guru Bachan Singh and Sri Adhir Ghosh moving amongst the strikers.
Sri V. Srinivasam (P. W. 5), Assistant Mains Superintendent, has stated that Sri Damodar Jha and Sri Adhir Ghosh did not work from 8 A. M. on 29th November, 1952, to 8 A. M. on 30th November, 1952, and he had seen respondent Kusheshwar Misra in front of the Company's City Office at Padriki Haveli and Sri Ranen Roy in front of the Union Office at about 5.15 P. M. on 29th November, 1952. Sri P.L. Sen (P. W. 6) also stated that he saw Sri Guru Bachan Singh and Sri Adhir Ghosh outside the gate of the Power House at Karbigahia and at that time Sri Guru Bachan Singh had a flag in his hand.
Sri S.C. Chatterjee (P. W. 7), the then Assistant Mines Engineer at Patna City, similarly deposed that respondent Abdul Jabbar was marked absent as he did not respond on the second call. He added further that Paltoo and Samoo (Respondents) were shouting slogans and Kusheshwar Misra was distributing hand-bills. Sri J. Arogyaswami (P. W. 8) merely stated that respondent Rarneshwar Singh and Bhagwan Rat were on strike on that day, and Sri V.M. Pillai (P. W. 9) also deposed that Sri Damodar Jha did not join work on 29th November, 1952.
10. That is all the evidence to prove a case of incitement and instigation under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is true that, according to P. W. 7, Samoo and Paltoo were shouting slogans and it may be said that the slogans should be taken as incitement or instigation for joining in the strike. Unfortunately, however, P. W. 7 was not in a position to say the actual words constituting the alleged slogans and further admitted that in his written report (Exhibit 10) submitted on 1st, of December, 19.52, there was nothing to indicate that these two respondents had been shouting slogans on the day of the strike.
It is also difficult to know from the statement of this witness about what the contents of the handbill were which Kusheshwar is said to have been distributing on the day of the strike. There is the solitary evidence of P. W. 3 about the wordings of the slogans used by respondent Kusheshwar, but these were in the nature of asking people in general not to use electricity. There was nothing in his slogans which would mean that he was instigating or inciting the workers of the Company.
The evidence of the other witneses merely points out that the respondents participated in a meeting where it was resolved to stage a token strike that some of them exhorted the workers to join the strike and that they actually did strike on the date fixed and they were seen carrying flags, distributing handbills and shouting certain slogans, the wordings of which have not been brought out on the record.
On the other hand, it has been elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was present at the two meetings of the Workers' Union, that the President, Sri Ranen Roy, asked the employees to be peaceful and that they should not interfere with any employee who wanted to go to work. It was also admitted that the President, Sri Ranen Roy, further asked the workers to remain standing by the side of the road with folded hands and reminded them again that the strike should be peaceful.
11. The words 'instigates' and 'incites' should be read to signify something deeper than a mere asking of a person to do a particular act. There must be something in the nature of solicitation to constitute instigation or incitement under Section 27 of the- Industrial Disputes Act. The words seem to convey the meaning to goad or urge forward or to provoke or encourage the doing of an act". It is, sometimes, difficult "to bring out the exact meaning of words which, by themselves, are so expressive and precise, and, not unoften, in trying to interpret such words, we are faced with the danger of using words', which, on closer scrutiny, may not carry the same sense.
What acts would amount to instigation or incitement will depend also upon the particular facts of each case. In some circumstances a throw of a finger or a mere turning of the eye may give rise to an inference of either incitement or instigation. In others, even strong words, expressly used, may not mean that the person using them was stimulating or suggesting to any one to do a particular act. The words 'instigates' and 'incites' appear to be synonymous and there must be something tangible in evidence to show that the persons responsible for such action' were deliberately trying to stir up other persons to bring about a certain object.
12. Judging the facts of this case in the light of the ordinary grammatical meaning of the words 'incites' and 'instigates', I cannot but hold that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove any act on the part of the respondents which would make them liable under' Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Misra, J.
13. I agree.