JUDGMENT- F.I. REBELLO, J.:--- The petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 29th July, 1999 whereby the Industrial Court has allowed the Complaint (ULP) No. 214 of 1998 filed by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, the recognised Union. The Industrial Court has held that the petitioners herein are engaged in unfair labour practices, set out under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. PULP Act and therefore directed the petitioners to cease and desist from the unfair labour practices. The petitioners have also been directed to lift the lock-out effected from 20th February, 1998 in the establishment within a period of 48 hours from the instant declaration. The petitioners have been further directed to pay wages along with the monetary benefits from the date of imposition of the lock-out till the date of their resuming normal duties, along with interest at 12% p.a. deducting therefrom any payment made against the wages during the said period, if any. By the same order Complaint (ULP) No. 273 of 1998 filed by some workers has been dismissed as not maintainable.

The workmen whose complaint was dismissed had filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 2093 of 1999. The said petition was disposed of by Order dated 20th August, 1999. The learned Judge therein has held that as the petition was pressed only against the findings of the Industrial Court filed by the workmen and as the Court has admitted a similar petition filed by the recognised Union, the petition was not being admitted. The learned Judge, however accepted the statement made on behalf of the petitioners herein that in the event the Mill files a petition against the Order dated 29th July, 1999 the petitioners therein would be made parties without prejudice to the contention of the Mill that the complaint filed by the workmen is not maintainable at law.

2.The Industrial Court in its order has noted in paragraph 2 that in both the complaints the Court was called upon to decide common question of facts and law. In these circumstances the Court has proceeded to dispose of the complaint by a common judgment after recording common evidence. The Industrial Court after holding the complaint by the workmen as not maintainable, yet proceeded while answering the Issues to observe that the evidence led by the workers could not be ignored as that would mean denial of justice to the workers. There are some other observations in para 11 of the Order which I do not propose to advert to. The Industrial Court, thereafter, on consideration of the material before it came to hold in paragraph 29, that the suspension of operation from 20th February, 1998 had all the trappings of a lock-out. This conclusion followed from the findings given by the Industrial Court that there was a demand made by the respondents Mill, to call on the workers to accept the alternative work and in that context the lock out imposed was to make the worker to see its point of view, by adopting coercive process. This point had to be considered more so as the petitioners herein in their written statement in answer to the complaint filed by the workmen had taken the plea without prejudice, that the notice of lock out is only given by way of abundant precaution and in fact there is no lock-out but merely a suspension of operations, as there is no demand placed on the employees as contemplated in the definition of lock-out. The Industrial Court thereafter in paragraph 32 has given a finding that the Company under the guise of lock out was intending to impose a closure. In so giving the finding, the Industrial Court has relied on the evidence both oral and documentary led before it. On behalf of the petitioners they had examined their General Manager whose evidence for reasons set out in the order was rejected by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court also relied on the Exhibit 'U-76'. Exhibit 'U-76" is the prospectus issued by the petitioners, after it was converted from a private l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document