Hind Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd. v Their Workmen
Rule established
Workers who absent themselves from duty under the mistaken but bona fide belief that a declared holiday entitled them to be absent, and who did not intend to strike or act in defiance of the employer, cannot be treated as having gone on an illegal strike; dismissal for such absence, disproportionate to the actual conduct involved, is not sustainable, and reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.
Facts
- A group of workers remained absent from duty on a day they mistakenly, but genuinely, believed had been declared a holiday
- The employer treated this collective absence as an illegal strike and dismissed the workers on that basis, without adequately considering whether their conduct reflected a genuine belief rather than concerted defiance of work obligations
Issue
- Whether workers who absent themselves under a bona fide, mistaken belief regarding a holiday can be treated as having gone on an illegal strike, justifying dismissal.
Held
- The Supreme Court held that a strike involves a concerted cessation of work intended to pressure the employer or protest against something; it requires an element of collective, deliberate defiance
- Where workers absent themselves under a genuine, bona fide mistaken belief that they were entitled to a holiday, this lacks the essential character of a strike, since there is no intention to defy the employer or press any demand
- Treating such bona fide absence as an illegal strike, and imposing dismissal as punishment, was disproportionate to the actual conduct involved
- The Court ordered reinstatement of the affected workers, holding that the punishment of dismissal did not fit the true nature of their conduct
Ratio Decidendi
A collective absence from duty motivated by a genuine, bona fide mistaken belief regarding entitlement to a holiday, without any intention of concerted defiance or protest, does not amount to an illegal strike; dismissal imposed on this mistaken characterisation is disproportionate, and reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.
How to use it in an exam
- Key authority for distinguishing genuine, bona fide absence from the deliberate, concerted conduct required to constitute an illegal strike
- Pair with the statutory definition of "strike" under Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act to test whether the intent element is satisfied on given facts
- Key line: intent to defy, not mere collective absence, is the defining feature of a strike; genuine mistake defeats that intent
- ---
Source
Source: AIR 1965 SC 917; standard casebook authority on distinguishing bona fide absence from illegal strike, cross-verify citation before exam use
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.