A lockout may be unjustified if it is declared with the ulterior motive of victimizing workmen for their trade union activities or it may be unjustified for having been continued for an unreasonable long time.

Soumen Sen, J.:-This writ petition is directed against the award dated 10th December, 2013 passed by the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-120/2005.

The Tribunal by the impugned award has declared the suspension of the work by the management with effect from 29th October, 2003 as unjustified. The charter of demands raised by the union prior to the suspension of the work was held to be valid and justified.

The issues specified in the order of reference for adjudication are as follows:

“1. (a) Whether the suspension of work declared by the management of M/s. Birla DLW Ltd. w.e.f. 29-10-03 is justified ?

(b) What relief, if any, are the workmen entitled to?

2. (a) Whether the demand of the Unions raised with regard to (I) Basic Wages, (ii) grade and scale of pay, (iii) VDA, (iv) Permanency, (v) Cheap canteen facility and (vi) bonus is justified?

(b) What relief, if any, are the workmen entitled to?

The proceeding before the Tribunal was initiated on the basis of a reference order being G. O. 1267-IR/IR/7L-03/98 dated 04/05.10.2005.

The Union before the Tribunal contended that the writ petitioner is a joint venture company promoted by M/s. Birla DLW Limited and presently the company is known as M/s Budge Budge Floor Coverings Limited instead of M/s. Birla DLW Limited. There are 128 industrial workers in the said company and the company was engaged in manufacturing eco-friendly linoleum floor cover of international quality. The business of the company was extremely profitable. The relationship between the employer and the employee till 2002 was cordial. The relationship became bitter after the union submitted a fresh charter of demand on May 30, 2001 after expiry of the last settlement dated 9th June, 1998. On May 30, 2001 on receipt of the charter of demand the management purposely and motivatedly with a view to avoid its liability and frustrate the legitimate demand of the workers alleged lack of viability of the unit as well as financial inability in refusing to accept the charter of demand. The union sought the intervention of the Labour Directorate for solution of the dispute. Several conciliation proceedings were held in respect of the charter of demands raised by the company, but due to the adamant attitude on the part of the company such conciliation proceedings failed. The company incorrectly represented before the Labour Commissioner that the product of the company is not much in demand in the international market. The company tried to hold the workers responsible for the alleged loss of business and not co-operating with the management to make the said unit viable. In spite of the assurance given by the union in its letter dated 15th November, 2002 to the management giving the accurate picture of the situation and giving their assurance to accede to the proposals of the management, the management failed to consider the charter of demands. The management made a false representation to the Labour Commissioner that the fortune of the company was on decline over the last seven years, and as a result whereof, it would not be possible for the management to concede to the demand of the union. On the contrary the management demanded increase in the workload as a condition precedent for considering the charter of demand. The management without any just cause or excuse forcibly stopped the work in the finishing department on 1st September, 2003.

The notice of suspension of work dated 1st September, 2003 was purportedly issued alleging that a section of the temporary workmen were disrupting the running of the department and they unauthorizedly entered in the finishing department in a group and stopped the work forcibly and unreasonably. It was as a result of such alleged activity the entire production activity of the finishing department came to a grinding halt causing substantial financial loss to the company. This was followed by the notice of suspension dated 29th October, 2003 suspending the work o