Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : T.N.VALLINAYAGAM
MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO.LTD., BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - Respondent
W. P. 7917 Of 1996
Decided On : 12/14/2000
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 22(3)(C) - SECTION 23 - SECTION 24(3) - LOCKOUT - STRIKE - JUSTIFICATION - LEGALITY - WAGES - PAYMENT - GO SLOW TACTICS - VIOLENCE - POLICE COMPLAINT - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT - INTERFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The management of a liquor manufacturing company declared a lockout from December 24, 1983 to February 8, 1984, alleging go-slow tactics, violence, and stay-in strike by the workmen. The workmen challenged the lockout and claimed wages for the period of lockout. The industrial tribunal held that the lockout was not justified and the workmen were entitled to wages for the said period. The management filed a writ petition challenging the tribunal's decision, while the workmen filed a writ petition challenging the tribunal's findings on the strike and absence from work.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the lockout was justified and the workmen were not entitled to wages for the period of lockout. The court found that the workmen had engaged in go-slow tactics, violence, and stay-in strike, which justified the management's decision to declare a lockout. The court also held that the strike on December 23, 1983 was not justified and the workmen were not entitled to wages for the period of absence from work from February 9, 1984 to April 16, 1984.
Issues: 1. Whether the lockout declared by the management was justified? 2. Whether the workmen were entitled to wages for the period of lockout? 3. Whether the strike on December 23, 1983 was justified? 4. Whether the workmen were entitled to wages for the period of absence from work from February 9, 1984 to April 16, 1984?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The lockout was justified as the workmen had engaged in go-slow tactics, violence, and stay-in strike, which justified the management's decision to declare a lockout. 2. The workmen were not entitled to wages for the period of lockout as the lockout was justified. 3. The strike on December 23, 1983 was not justified as it was called to protest against the management's decision to file a charge sheet against some workmen. 4. The workmen were not entitled to wages for the period of absence from work from February 9, 1984 to April 16, 1984 as the management had informed the workmen that the lockout would be lifted only after the plant was made ready for production.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the management and dismissed the writ petition filed by the workmen.
( 1 ) IN both these writ petitions the award dated May 8, 1995 in Ref. No. 69/1984 passed by the respondent are questioned. One is by the management (W. P. No. 7917/1996) wherein the award in so far as it relates to declaration of lockout to be unjustified and grant of wages for the said period i. e. , from December 24, 1983 to February 8, 1984 is sought to be quashed and another (W. P. No. 25545/1996) is by the workmen to quash the finding in so far as it relates to strike on December 23, 1983 by all workers and remaining absent from february 9, 1984 to April 16, 1984 by a section of workmen and workers are entitled to full wages for the period from February 9, 1984 to april 16, 1984.
( 2 ) AS common order is involved, the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by common order.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 7917/1996 engaged in manufacture of Indian Made liquor. There are about 158 workmen and the 2nd respondent union placed a charter of demands on November 22, 1980 which was in force till October 31, 1984 from November 1, 1980. It is contended that the workmen resorted to illegal strike from December, 1983. The management claimed that the office bearers and executive committee members of the union entered into the Administrative office of the petitioner company unauthorisedly and instructed the administrative staff not to work.
( 4 ) ON the other hand, the workmen claimed that police force and goondaism was used against them and the leaders and active members of the workers union were charge sheeted. On December 22, 1983 the union wrote a letter to the management and at about 1 p. m. a procession was taken around the administrative office inside the factory by the workmen. It is alleged by the management that one B. K. Narasimharnurthy, the Assistant security Officer was manhandled and the workmen resorted to go slow tactics in the factory. Though the notice to give 'go slow tactics' and maintain discipline and normal production in the factory did yield any result, the management put up several notices and there is no response. It was claimed that the workmen were working on the machines with loose clothes such as shawls on them were advised that it was unsafe to work on moving machines if they were not observing safety rules and regulations. The agitation started right from the middle of October 1983 by the workmen. A lockout was declared with effect from December 24, 1983 and the dispute was raised and the reference was made by the government on October 30, 1984. The dispute is in regard to issue l (a) and l (b) were settled by the joint memorandum of settlement. Therefore, these issues were dropped. The industrial Tribunal was required to decide the issues 2 and 3 pertaining to justification of lockout with effect from December 24, 1983 to february 8, 1984 and also absenting themselves from February 9, 1984 in respect of still house, boiler house, water treatment, maintenance and power house departments. Before the industrial Tribunal, evidence was led by both the parties and ultimately, the impugned award came to be passed on May 8, 1995.
( 5 ) THE Tribunal held that the declaration of lockout with effect from December 24, 1983 to February 8, 1984 is not justified and the workmen are entitled for back wages for the said period. (2) The strike on December 23, 1983 was not justified. (3) Issue regarding continuance of lockout from February 9, 1984 up to April 16, 1984 though the lock out was lifted by the management in respect of the department of Still House, Boiler House, Water treatment and Maintenance would not arise for consideration because workmen refused to work and they have not been entitled for any wages for that period. (4) The workmen are not justified in remaining absent from work from february 9, 1984 till April 16, 1984 in the departments after (sic) lockout was (sic) lifted.
( 6 ) CHALLENGING the finding regarding justification of the lockout from December 24,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
