1952 1948, amounted to a strike. It was not a case of an individual worker's failure to turn up for work. It Iluckin,ghn1n d · h f 1 b and carnatic wa~ a concerte act10n on t e part o a arge num er co. Ltd. of workers. The Appellate Tribunal was thus in error v in not regarding it as a strike and it had no discretion Workers of the not to regard what in law was a strike as not amount- Bl!ckingham ing to a strikff. If it cannot be denied that the stop- and Carnat.c page• of work on 1st November, 1948, amounted to a. Co. Ltd. strike, then it was certainly an illega 1 strike because Mahajan J. no notice had been given ·to the management, the Mills being a public utility industry. It was contended by the President of the Union, who argued the case on behalf of the workers, that the Factories Act had no application to this case, because by a notification of the Government of Madras dated 23rd August, 1946, the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills had been exempted from the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Act and ~he provisions of sections 49-A and 49-B were not therefore attracted to it and that no substantial question of law in respect to the construction of the section fell to be decided by this Court and that being so, this Court should not entertain this appeal ·under article 136 of the Constitution. '!.'his contention has no validity. '!'he Mills were granted exemption from the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Factories Act because thei1· leave rules were in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Factories Act. These rules being in similar terms, the decision of the matter depends on the construction of the rules and this involves a substantial question of law.
