Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Petitioners 36 in number instituted M.J.Cases before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur for computation of their monthly pay, dearness allowances and other allowances outstanding due with opposite party/employer for the period 1st April, 1998 to 19th December, 2003 and to pay the amount so computed.

3. On the rival pleadings of the parties four issues were framed by the learned court, which are as follows:

“(i) whether the applicants worked at their work place under the employment of opposite party during the period 01.4.1998 to 19.12.2003 ?

(ii) whether there was temporary closure/suspension of work in the company during the period 01.4.1998 to 19.12.2003?

(iii) whether temporary closure, if any of work creates any legal impediment in the entitlement of the applicants to get full wages for the closure period of the company on the application of legal principles of “No work no pay”

(iv) whether the applications of the applicants/workmen u/s. 33C(2) I.D Act for the relief sought for is maintainable?”

4. The applicants examined only one witness, who deposed on behalf of all applicants and supported the pleadings stating that only 40% of their respective pay and allowances have been paid by the employer during the period 1st April, 1998 to 19th December, 2003. They also adduced certain documents as exhibits.

5. The opposite party-employer had examined two witnesses, who deposed that Factory was closed during the period in question on account of the fact that power supply was disconnected due to non payment of electric supply bill. The Company later on was taken over by Tata Steel Ltd. The Company was declared sick and failed to make payment of electric bill, as a result of which, power supply was stopped and company became closed till it was taken over by Tata Steel Ltd. with effect from 20.12.2003. Only JEMCO Division was functional. Due to unavailability of electric supply, no manufacturing activity could be possible during the period in question. Tata Steel Company made a trialrun of operational activity for a period of 3 months from 1st January, 1999 to 31st March, 99. During that period, employees were paid their full wages. During the period of closure, the workmen were paid 40 to 50% of their respective monthly wages and they were issued a slip in proof of payment. No P. F was deducted. It pleaded that the workmen would not be entitled to full wages on the principle of 'No work no pay'. The employer also stated that if the temporary closure is declared unjustified, the opposite party would care to pay the balance amount of monthly wages to the workmen. Several exhibits were also adduced by the opposite party-employer.

6. Learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur upon consideration of rival pleadings and the evidence of the parties, came to a finding on Issue nos. (i) and (ii) that manufacturing activities remained totally stopped in ISWPL and there was no production at all. Opposite party had successfully proved that due to disconnection of power supply, machines could not be operated. The applicants had therefore failed to prove that they had worked and participated in manufacturing activities in the company for the period 1st, April, 1998 to 19th December, 2003. Resultantly, Issue nos. (i) and (ii) were decided against the workmen/applicants in favour of employer. In respect of Issue no. (iii) also, the learned Labour Court found that the workmen were not entitled to get their pay for the period in question on the legal principle of 'No work no pay'. Learned Labour Court came to a conclusion that suspension of manufacturing work in the case in hand would come within definition of temporary closure amounting to lock out under Section 2(L) of I.D Act which also required adjudication. The employer did not refuse to give work to the workmen. The workmen could not discharge the work due to operating machine became nonfunctional in absence of electric supply. The Labour Court h