JUDGMENT - M.M. QAZI, J.:---Both the petitions are being disposed of by this judgment since the point involved is common.

2. The petitioner is a Union of workers registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, and the respondent, is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. 1950. It is an industry which is engaged in manufacture of cement. According to the petitioner, since the respondent did not implement the Award, dispute arose and notice dated 20th April, 1987, of the strike was given. The strike was to commence from 8-5-1987. The respondent made a reference under section 25 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 1971. (for short the Act) before the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur on 4-5-1987 for a declaration that the strike resorted to by the petitioner Union was illegal. There is no dispute that the reference is still pending.

2-A. The respondent filed complaint (ULPN) No. 305 of 1987 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur (Shri S.V. Vaze) against the petitioner and three others under section 28 of the Act, for a declaration that the strike which was to commence on 8-5-1987 and which had been advanced instigated and actively supported by the Union had to be deemed an illegal one, firstly because it was commenced within fourteen days of the date of strike notice, and secondly because of the substituting settlement. The respondent contended that by advising and instigating such as strike and inducing the workers to adopt violent means to pressurise the management, the Union had been indulging in unfair labour practices covered by items 1 and 5 of Schedules III of the Act. The respondent sought for a declaration likewise and direction to the Union and its office bearers to cases and desist therefore. It also for an interim relief in terms of section 30(2) of the Act. The Industrial Court vide order dated 25-5-1987 granted interim relief. The operative part (Para 11) of the order is reproduces below :---

"In the result, the application is allowed and order passed by this Court earlier on this application is confirmed and in reiteration is directed that the respondents shall cease and desist from advising, supporting and instigating the striking workers in strikes matter during the pendency of the complaint filled. Though it is left to the respondents to decide the mode and manner for complying with the direction given, still with a view to obviate any controversy in that behalf and any proceeding arising there from, it is being laid down that issuing of a written communication in that behalf by respondents addressed to the striking workers and publication thereof at the notice board of the Union office and notice as a compliance with the direction given."

The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court Writ Petition No. 1178 of 1987 decided on 12-6-1987. This Court confirmed the above order of the State Industrial Court with little modification.

3. In view of the strike by the petitioner, the respondents wanted to make fresh recruitment with a view to keep the Plant going. The petitioner, therefore, filed a company under section 28 read with Item 4(b) of Schedule II and Item 8 of Schedule IV of the Act, praying that the respondent be restrained from making requitement till the time the strike was declared illegal. The petitioner contended that the act of the respondent in making requitement prior to seeking the declaration of the strike as illegal amounts to unfair labour practice falling within the mischief of Item 8 in Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner simultaneously filed an application in terms of section 30 (2) of the Act, praying for an interim relief that the respondent be restrained from making fresh recruitment during the pendency of the complaint or till the time the strike was declared illegal. The respondent contested this application. According to it, the parties had entered into a settl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document