R. J. KOCHAR

( 1 ) THE petitioner being an employee of second respondent filed an application before the Labour Court under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act praying for computation of money due to him from the Company for the period from 1-12-1986 to 31-1-1987 and Rs. 1,400/- towards leave travel assistance.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had filed the said application saying that with effect from 29-11-1986 the respondent company had instructed him not to enter the office and the work place and had refused to give work to him at their district office at Swadeshi Mills Estate, though he was ready and willing to work as per lawful and reasonable instructions of the opponent. According to him having fulfilled the expressed or implied terms of the company, he was entitled to receive from the company full wages and benefits for the period from 1-12-1986. The petitioner therefore had prayed for direction from the Labour Court against the company for payment and recovery of the said amount.

( 3 ) THE respondent company contested the application by filing its written statement. It raised a substantial objection about the maintainability of the very application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as according to the respondents it had effected a valid and legal lockout from 15-12-1986 onwards, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any wages for the period of the legal and valid lockout. It was specifically contended that the attendance of the employees was dispensed with from 29-11-1986 to 14-12-1986 for which period the company had paid wages to the employees and the same was admitted by the petitioner himself. It is also the case of the company that a sum of Rs. 1,400/- on account of leave travel allowance was sanctioned and was sent to him by a telegraphic money order on or about 9th December, 1987, and therefore, it was not necessary for the Labour Court to pass any order in that respect.

( 4 ) THE Labour Court framed the following issue :--- whether the claim of wages can be determined and computed by this Court in this proceeding when it is the contention of the company that they had effected valid and legal lockout during the said period ?" and answered the same in the negative.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgement and order of the Labour Court, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have gone through the entire proceedings. I have also carefully read the judgment given by the Labour Court. The company did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was asked not to enter the place of work from 29-11-1986 and it is the positive case of the company that for that period i. e. from 29-11-1986 to 14-12-1986 full wages have been paid to the petitioner. It is further contended by the company that it had effected legal and valid lockout from 15-12-1986, and therefore, no wages were payable for the period of legal and valid lockout. It is also not disputed that the question of legality of the lockout has been determined by the Labour Court under separate proceedings under section 24 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 in a proper reference filed by the General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay of which the petitioner was a member.

( 6 ) THE said reference (U. L. P.) was decided on 7-7-1987 in favour of the company and it was held that the lock out effected by the company from 9. 30 a. m. on 15-12-1986 was not an illegal lockout. According to the company, there was no lockout from 29-11-1986 to 14-12-1986 as for that notice period the employees were paid their full wages and the lock out commenced from 15-12-1986 which has been held to be not illegal. According to the company, the employees were not entitled to get any wages for the period during which the lockout commenced and continued lawfully. According to me, the Labour Court has accurately considered the legal position and has rightly held, following the judgments of the Supreme Court, that the Labour Court under section 33-C (2)