Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.J. Pandya, J.
M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. others..... Petitioners.
Versus
M/s. Oswal Petrochemicals Employees Union others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 484 of 1999, decided on 9-3-1999.
Advocates appeared :
K.K. Singhavi with M.S. Naik S.M. Naik, for the petitioners.
Colin Gonsalves, for the respondents.
Section 30, Schedule II, Item No- 6 and Schedule IV, Item No. 9Initial shut down notice altered into notice of lock-out-Court can enter into justifiability of action while granting interim relief holding that there was a prima facie case.-A complaint under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act was filed challenging the action of shut down wherein on 27.11.1998 time was sought by the company to file a reply and on that date even the question of grant of interim relief under the complaint originally filed was not taken up. On the next date the lock-out notice was given and it was in this background that the Industrial Court was compelled to exercise its power to grail interim relief under Section 30 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The interim relief as granted was challenged in writ petition.
Held, that in a given case the Court can enter into justifiability when the complaint is filed also with reference to Item No.9 of Schedule IV or any other related items of Schedule IV. In the matter relating to industrial dispute, the balance of convenience has to be seen from the point of view of the employer and employees, distribution of production, and more particularly for forced idleness imposed on the workmen initially with wages and later on without wages. The trial Court was, therefore, justified in allowing the application of interim relief whereby the respondents are directed to lift the notice of lock-out and suspension of operation dated 28.11.1998 and to provide work to the workmen concerned. The company may have sufficient material to support its action which they can certainly make out before the Court in the course of trial of the complaint.
2.As the petition was filed against the interim relief which had the impact of lifting the dispute of lock out, obviously the petitioner-company was serious about it. Whether the entire petition is heard or after issuing rule in the petition it is heard for interim relief, it would be one and the same. By consent, therefore, the petition itself was taken up for hearing after issuing rule which was waived by Counsel Mr. Colin Gonsalves i/by Ms. Gayatri Singh for the respondent-union. That is how this petition is heard and finally decided by the present order. The complaint as originally filed is Exh. D, page 25. I used the word as originally filed as on 26-11-1998 because on the date of filing of the complaint the disputed lock out was not in existence. What was challenged by way of that complaint of the aforesaid date was the impugned action of the petitioner-company of stoppage of work which was claimed to be for maintenance. It is technically, therefore, refers to as shut down for maintenance. Thereafter on 28-11-1998 the company issued a notice of lock out. The earlier action of shut down for a period of 45 days was taken on 19-1-1998, which was extended and all through, admittedly the workers were paid full wages.
3.The said event of lock out notice prompted the respondent-union to file an application for amendment of its complaint on 1-12-1998. The company opposed the amendment by reply dated 4-12-1998. By order dated 8-12-1998, the trial Court allowed the amendment application.
4.Application for interim relief was submitted which was rejected on 8-12-1998. After the complaint was amended, application for additional interim relief was filed on 2-12-1998. This was objected to by detail reply filed by the petitioner-company on 14-12-1998 and after hearing both the sides, the learned trial Judge passed an order on 25-1-1999. it is this order, which is sought to be challenged.
5.The impugned order dated 25-1-1999 at pages 143 and 144 reads as follows. :--
"Application for interim relief Exh. U-9 is hereby allowed.
1. The respondents are directed to lift the notice of lock out and suspension of operation dated 28-11-1998 and to provide work to the workmen concerned.
2. In case, the respondent-company does not provide work to the workmen concerned, it should pay the monthly wages to them as it used to pay earlier.
3. The respondent company is granted 15 days time to comply with the interim order in terms of Nos. 1 and 2 above.
4. The respondent company is also further directed to pay arrears of wages within the period of one month from the date of this order.
If the parties co-operate, the complaint can be decided early on merits."
6.The petitioner company has strongly assailed the reasoning given in the said order and has commented that without giving a finding that the union has succeeded in making out a prima facie case, the order is passed. The second contention is that when it is a matter of lock out and the complaint being under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, the trial Court could not go into the question of justifiability of lock out. It has to see the action of lock out under the provisions of MRTU PULP Act as set out in section 24 sub section (2) in Chapter V of the said Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also referred to section 25 of the said Act and thereafter he drew my attention to Item No. 6 of Schedule II of the said M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. Item No. 6 reads "Proposing or continuing a lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act".
7.The complaint as filed and the matter as arg
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
