R S Ruikar V Emperor 1935

Facts:
 The appellant was the president of Nagpur textile Union. They had a dispute with
management of the mill over the settlement of a strike in the previous year. He directed the
workers for picketing and even directed his wife to participate in that by beating with her
slippers if anyone interfered with her. He was arrested and convicted for abetment of the
offence of molestation under section 7 of criminal law amendment act.
 It was upheld in the appeal and now is the revision application.
Observation:
 The contention that the valuable right to strike and their immunity from criminal and civil
liability is taken away if Sec 7 is enforced on appellant stands dismissed. It is not in conflict
with any laws and Sec 7 of CLA has universal application. This law was meant to solve the
deficiencies in the Penal code which was evident during the Civil Disobedience Movement.
 Apart from Criminal conspiracy offence, There is no other offence which gets immunity
under Sec 17 of Trade Unions Act. Indeed, any agreement to commit an offence would make
them liable for criminal conspiracy under Sec 17 of TUA.
Judgement:
 Appeal dismissed and the conviction was upheld

Rohtas Industries Staff Union V State of Bihar 1963 (Patna HC)

Facts:
 Dispute over non payment of bonus and non implementation of incentives, there was
dispute between workers and employer Rohtas Industries Ltd and subsequent strike. The
strike was called off after 1 month on the basis of an agreement reached under both to refer
the dispute to an arbitrator. Under Sec 10A of IDA, Govt published the arbitration agreement
in Bihar Gazette.
 The arbitrators gave an award and sent to govt. it held that the workers who had gone to
strike should pay compensation to the employer.
 Aggrieved by this, the workers went to HC u/a 226 to issue writ of certiorari to quash the
award of arbitrator.
Issue:
 Whether the nature of strike (legal of illegal) under Sec 24 of IDA has any effect on the
question of immunity provided under section 18 of TUA.
Observation of Court:
1. The question of compensation payable by the workmen to the employer for the loss caused
by strike doesn't come under purview of Sec 10A of IDA (power of Govt to direct case to
arbitrator, court)and Such a claim of compensation to employers doesn’t fall with in the
definition of 'Industrial Dispute' under Section 2(k) of IDA.
2. By Sorrell V Smith, for a conspiracy to be an actionable tort, there must be
a. combination of two or more persons with willful motive to injure his trade
b. And causes damage to him
3. If the motive is Mixed Motive, the dominant test is to be applied.
4. The arbitrators failed to go into the question of what was the dominant purpose of the
strike. Though arbitrators say there is 'ulterior objectives from workers', they fail to mention
what were those and evidence to support it. Hence the award of compensation is quashed.
5. Section 24 imposes statutory duty on the employees to commence an illegal strike. But they
go for such illegal strike then, the employer (The company) has no right of civil action for
damages against the workers who went for illegal strike except Section 26 of IDA which talks
about criminal prosecution.
Judgement:
 Award of arbitrators is ultravires and illegal
 Petitioners entitled to quash the award