JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---Admit. Notice made returnable forthwith. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel, waives service for the respondents. By consent, appeal called out and heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15th November, 2000 (reported on 2001(2) Bom.C.R. 447) rejecting prayer Clause (a)(i) made in the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant. Though the appeal came up before us for admission, considering the importance of the issues that were raised up in the appeal, we have heard the Counsel on both sides at length and propose to dispose of this appeal finally by a judgment at this stage itself.

3. The appellant is an industry engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products including Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG). It employs a large number of workmen in its establishments engaged in manufacturing and distribution of its products. The appellant Corporation, a Government Company had entered into a long term settlement prescribing the conditions of service of its workmen. This long term settlement was to last for five years from 1st June, 1993 to 31st May, 1998. After expiry of the said settlement, the respondent Unions, which represent the workmen of the appellant, submitted a fresh Charter of Demands. There was a series of meetings to negotiate the demands put forward by the workmen, but no settlement could be finalised. On 13th October, 2000 the respondent Unions issued a strike notice under section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 informing the appellant that the respondent Unions propose to call upon the workmen concerned to resort to an appropriate direct action of any type, including strike of any duration and nature, on the expiry of the 14th day from service of the notice, for the reasons explained in the annexure to the strike notice. The annexure to the strike notice indicates a number of pending demands of the workmen and also alleges an unjustificable delay in holding negotiations on the part of the appellant Corporation. This strike notice was received by the Appellate on 17th October, 2000. As required under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a copy of the strike notice was endorsed simultaneously to the Central Government Conciliation Officer. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central Government), Mumbai took the strike notice under conciliation on 18th October, 2000 and issued a letter calling upon the respondents to restrain the workmen from proceeding on any strike as their demands were under conciliation. On 19th October, 2000, the respondent Unions and its members went on a flash strike at all the locations in the Western region as a consequence of which the supply and distribution of petroleum products was disrupted resulting in inconvenience to the public.

4. The appellant by now realised that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workmen and the Unions proposed to continue the strike despite the pending conciliation proceedings.

5. On 20th October 2000, the Appellate filed a suit in this Court being Suit No. 4498 of and took out therein the Notice of Motion for ad-interim reliefs. On 23rd October 2000 (just on the eve of Diwali holidays) the Notice of Motion was urgently moved before the learned Vacation Judge and the learned Vacation Judge recorded the statement of the Advocate for the Unions that the member-workmen of the respondent Unions would not resort to any go-slow or strike during Diwali festival days and that their industrial action would be kept in abeyance till 7th November 2000. The Notice of Motion was placed on Board for hearing on 6th November 2000 on such a statement being made by the learned Advocate for the respondent Unions.

6. The Notice of Motion came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge and was heard on 7th and 8th November 2000 and was kept for orders on 15th November 2000.

7. On 15th November 2000, the learned Single Judge made an or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document