1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/917/2023 The Director of Transport Vs Govt. Motor Transport Drivers Union and Others Mr.V.D.Sivabalan … for the petitioner Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the respondent August 28, 2026 [SR] Item No.1 1. The writ petition has been filed by the Director of Transport challenging the judgment passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands on 31.03.2023. 2. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to hold that the strike resorted to by the respondent Union on 14.12.2018 was legal and justified as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court directed the petitioner to provide all consequential benefits including continuous service to the concerned Daily Rated STS Drivers from the date of deterrent action taken against them. 3. The petitioner submits that the strike held on December 14, 2018 is illegal. According to the petitioner, a conciliation proceeding was pending on the date of the strike. Section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been placed. It has been submitted that the Union could not have resorted to the strike when their demands were already under consideration before the Conciliation Officer. 2 4. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 5. Learned advocate representing the respondent Union categorically submits that on the date of the strike, no conciliation proceeding was pending. The strike was held on 14.12.2018. Immediately upon getting notice of conciliation in the evening of 14.12.2018, the strike was withdrawn. 6. It has been submitted that the strike was held strictly in accordance with the provisions of theAct. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition and to direct the writ petitioner to take steps to comply with the directions passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. I have heard and considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. Section 22(1) of the Act has been set out in the impugned judgment. 8. The aforesaid provision clearly mentions that no person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract without giving to the employer notice of strike, within six weeks before striking or within 14 days of giving such notice or before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid, or during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer and seven days after conclusion of such proceeding. 9. In the instant case, the strike was conducted on 14.12.2018,notice whereof was given on 29.11.2018. There is nothing on record to show that on the day the strike was held, the conciliation proceeding was pending. 3 10. It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that a notice dated 10.12.2018 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner(HQ), Conciliation Officer was addressed to the General Secretary of the Union and to the writ petitioner requesting them to attend conciliation proceeding on 12.12.2018 at 3.00 pm. Certain hand-written recordings, allegedly from the official note sheets of the petitioner, have been placed by the learned advocate representing the petitioner in support of the submission that on 12.12.2018 the representative of the Union and the management attended the conciliation proceeding. 11. The petitioner submits that the said recording is enough to suggest that a conciliation proceeding was pending on the day of the strike. 12. As per the Act, the Labour Court acts as a Civil Court in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. To prove a fact or document before the Civil Court, the parties are required to lead evidence. 13. In the case at hand, the learned Trial Court has clearly recorded that no evidence was adduced from the side of the management. Neither any witness was examined nor any document examined. The management stated that it did not have any witness for examination. Defence witness was closed without examination and the parties proceeded for arguments. 14. The learned Trial Court recorded that notice was published by the department on 13.12.2018 declaring the 4 proposed strike as illegal;but for reasons best known, the said notice was never placed before the learned Court. 15. The file notings heavily relied upon by the petitioner to prove the pendency of the conciliation proceeding are merely hand-written notes scribbled on white sheets without any official seal. The notings have not been proved by adducing evidence. Neither the contents of the sheets, nor the so-called signatures of any of the parties have been sought to be proved. Such hand-written notes, without being proved, cannot be relied upon for adjudication of a lis between the parties. 16. The reference before the learned Trial Court was – whether the strike by the Union on 14.12.2018 was legal and justified? The Union had produced evidence and proved that prior notice of strike was given to the management and there was no conciliation proceeding pending on the day of the strike. It was for the petitioner/management to disprove the contention of the Union. The petitioner/management miserably failed to do so. 17. From the aforesaid, it can be concluded that the submission of the writ petitioner regarding pendency of the conciliation proceeding on the day of the strike does not appear to be based upon any record. The strike was conducted prior to initiation of the conciliation proceeding and the same was called-off the moment the notice of conciliation was issued. 18. In view of the above, the Court does not find any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Labour Court. The writ 5 petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. The writ petitioner is directed to comply with the directions passed by the learned Trial Court. 20. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Amrita Sinha, J. )