Pranav was appointed in the service of Innovative Publications Ltd. (A Company in the business of newspaper publications in name of Innovations Daily), as the Chief Sub-Editor in January, 2020. Thereafter on 01.01.2022 h

CS Professional · Labour Laws and Practice · PYQS · December 2025
Pranav was appointed in the service of Innovative Publications Ltd. (A Company in the business of newspaper publications in name of Innovations Daily), as the Chief Sub-Editor in January, 2020. Thereafter on 01.01.2022 he was promoted as Chief of News Bureau. The Company transferred Pranav to its Kozhikode Unit on 27.05.2022. However, without accepting the transfer order, on 30.05.2022, he had applied for leave from 01.06.2022 to 30.06.2022. Thereafter, on 01.07.2022, he again applied for leave for a further period of 50 days. Though Pranav had been directed to join duty at Kozhikode, he did not do so. Therefore, the Company issued a letter dated 10.11.2022 cautioning Pranav against taking leave for such a long duration. Since Pranav did not abide by the said communication, he was issued with a memo dated 29.11.2022 alleging grave misconduct. Pranav joined duty at Kozhikode thereafter. However, he was reluctant to discharge of his duties diligently. Subsequently, Pranav was transferred to Kollam as a Desk Editor of the Quilon Bureau on 13.04.2023. On 20.06.2023, a memo was issued to Pranav alleging unauthorised leave. Since he did not show any improvement, a show cause notice dated 22.07.2023 was issued to Pranav seeking his explanation. He was also informed by the said communication that the company would be constrained to terminate his services if his explanation was not submitted within three days. Pranav did not submit any explanation and therefore, he was dismissed from service on 05.08.2023. Pranav raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. Pranav claimed that he was designated as Chief of News Bureau, the duties discharged by him were those of a Working Journalist. He was the President of the Working Journalists Union during 2022-2023. During the period he was President, he had demanded enhancement of the wages inviting the wrath of the employer. His dismissal is on baseless charges and is motivated by the personal animosity nurtured by the employer. Though it was contended that his work was supervisory in nature, no evidence was adduced by the management in support of the said claim. Pranav's wife Bhumika was working as a Clerk-Typist in the Office of the Managing Director (MD) of Fine Fabrics Ltd. and Bhumika was reporting to Mahendra, Senior Manager of the MD's Secretariat. The FFL is engaged in manufacturing of synthetic yarn. A meeting of some foreign clients of the FFL was kept in a Five Star Hotel. Mahendra insisted Bhumika to go with him to the Hotel for taking dictation from the MD and type out the matter. Under the pressure of Mahendra, Bhumika went to take the dictation from the MD. While Bhumika was waiting in adjoining room for the dictation from the MD, Mahendra tried to sit too close to Bhumika and despite her objection he did not give up his objectionable behaviour. Bhumika later took dictation from the MD. Mahendra told her to type and get its print out. Since the laptop and printer were located in the basement of the Hotel, Mahendra volunteered to show her the basement for getting the matter typed and taking advantage of the isolated place and again tried to sit very close to her despite her objections. The draft typed matter was corrected by MD who asked Bhumika to retype the same. Mahendra again accompanied with Bhumika to the basement and repeated his overtures. Bhumika warned Mahendra that she would leave the place if he continued to behave like that, however, Mahendra did not stop and continued his objectionable acts. Next day, Bhumika made a written complaint to the MD. Pranav's child, named Akshay is just 10 years old but performs dance very well and participated in the School dance competitions. He also participated in the famous TV show of 'Dance India' which is telecasted on the TV having nationwide presence. In this background, answer the following questions: How did the Supreme Court justify the introduction of the "doctrine of apportionment of blame" in the context of unjustified strikes and lockouts during the proceedings of India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen ?

Answer & Explanation:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the situation if the strike is followed by lockout and vice versa, and both are unjustified, in India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workman, AIR 1963 SC 528 . In this case, the Court evolved the doctrine of "apportionment of blame" to solve the problem. According to this doctrine, when the workmen and the management are equally to be blamed, the Court normally awards half of the wages. This doctrine was followed by the Supreme Court in several cases. Thus, the examination of the above cases reveal that when the blame for situation is apportioned roughly half and half between the management and workmen, the workmen are given half of the wages for the period involved. The Supreme Court justified the introduction of the "doctrine of apportionment of blame" by recognizing that in industrial disputes, both employers and employees may act irresponsibly, leading to prolonged stoppages of work. In the present case, the workers initiated an unjustified strike without exhausting legitimate dispute-resolution mechanisms, while the employer reacted by imposing a lockout that was equally unjustified and retaliatory in nature. If the Court were to award full wages for the strike period, it would encourage employees to take recourse to unlawful strikes, knowing they would not suffer financial loss. On the other hand, if wages were fully denied, it would empower employers to misuse their superior economic strength by imposing retaliatory lockouts to break the unity of workers. To strike a balance, the Court evolved the doctrine of apportionment of blame, under which responsibility for the industrial deadlock was apportioned between both sides, with workers being granted only partial wages. This solution reflected fairness, discouraged misuse of economic weapons, and promoted industrial discipline. The doctrine was thus a judicial innovation to prevent either party from unjustly profiting from their wrongful conduct.

Topics: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic