JUDGMENT :

R.J. Kochar, J.—The petitioner union is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated January 8, 1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint ULP No. 213 of 1984. The complaint was filed by the petitioner union against the respondents alleging unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule II and also Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The nub of the complaint filed by the petitioner can be very briefly stated. The petitioner had sought relief against the action of the company resorting to suspension of work w.e.f. June 1, 1984 and subsequently effecting lock-out w.e.f. June 18, 1984. According to the petitioner union, the aforesaid notice of suspension of work and lock-out which commenced on June 18, 1984 was an unfair labour practice as contemplated under Item 6 of Schedule II of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It also amounted to an unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner union sought declaration from the Industrial Court to that effect and also sought consequential reliefs of full wages for the entire period of suspension of work and lock-out w.e.f. June