JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners challenge the order dated 13th February, 1985 passed by the Government of Maharashtra under section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ,the Act") prohibiting the continuance of the alleged lock-out resorted to by M/s. Avanti Development Company Limited (Petitioner No. 2). Petitioner No. 1 Harish Bijaykumar Khaitan is a share-holder and the Managing Director of petitioner No. 2.

2. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2, the Association of Engineering Workers, is a Registered Trade Union. It claims to represent the workmen of petitioner No. 2 Company. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are the workmen employed by petitioner No. 2 and they claim to represent all the workmen.

3. The facts on which the petitioners based their writ petition are as under:

Petitioner No. 2 was incorporated under Companies Act on 16th October, 1981. It acquired John Baker Division (the present undertaking) from Warren Industrial Limited by an Agreement dated 27th April, 1982. M/s. Warren Industrial Limited had purchased the said Unit from M/s. Killick Nixon Limited. Petitioner No. 2 manufactures engineer steel files and has a licensed capacity of 20,000 dozen per month. The technology of the said undertaking is not upto-date. According to the petitioners, the previous owners viz. M/s. Killick Nixon Ltd. and Warren Industrial Limited did not find the working of the undertaking economically viable and, therefore, they had sold it out. The petitioners acquired the unit with a hope that they would be able to make it economically viable. However, it has been continuously running at a loss. The petitioners State that when they took over the Unit with liability in respect of employees for the past services under M/s. Warren Industrial Limited and M/s. Killick Nixon Limited in respect of gratuity and retrenchment compensation etc., there were about 300 employees working there.

4. It appears that even before the petitioners took over the business, as stated above, the workmen were the members of respondent No. 2. There was a settlement entered into in respect of the service conditions of the workmen between the previous management and respondent No. 2. The said settlement was to expire on 31st December, 1983 but before that respondent No. 2 terminated the settlement and submitted a fresh charter of demands by its letter dated 26th October, 1983 and called upon the petitioners to negotiate. It further appears that several meeting took place between the parties in order to settle the demands of the workmen between January, 1984 and June, 1984. However, no settlement could be worked out. It is alleged by the petitioners that from end of April 1984 the workmen started resorting to various illegal and coercive tactics. They were requested not to do so by a notice dated 6th May, 1984 but the workmen started agitation and forcibly entered the cabin of the General Manager and gheraoed him when police help was sought. The workmen were again asked not to resort to such activities by a notice dated 10th May, 1984. The petitioners further allege that the Personnel Officer of respondent No. 2 displayed a notice on 25th May, 1984 advising the worker's about increase in the production and to improve the working of the factory but the workmen gheraoed, insulted, abused and coerced him to remove the said notice. Petitioners' further grievance is that the workmen intensified illegal activities with effect from lst June, 1984 and resorted to deliberate and illegal go slow. From time to time they were requested to desist from such activities and even disciplinary action was taken against four employees. It further appears that complaints and counter-complaints of unfair labour practices were filed by the parties in the Industrial Court. Such allegations and counter-allegations by and between the parties wen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document