Court held conduct of petitioner highly unwarranted.

The writ petitioner Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is wholly owned by the Central Government and they have filed the present writ petition seeking for a declaration declaring that the strike notice dated 30.3.2007 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 is illegal and violative of Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, I.D. Act]. This was in view of the fact that the proceedings are pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court No.2 Mumbai, for adjudication of issues relating to the quantum of Performance Linked Incentive Scheme [hereinafter referred to as PLIS] between the management and the workmen and to what relief the workmen are entitled.

2. I have heard the arguments of Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s King & Partridge for the petitioner and have perused the records.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the present strike notice dated 30.3.2007 issued by the respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are admittedly Trade Unions registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Under the strike notice dated 30.3.2007, the Unions have given the following reasons in their strike notice:

“(i) BPCL management has unilaterally declared the PLIS amount to be paid to the workmen without holding any discussions or informing the recognized unions which amounts to unfair labour practice as per clause No.1-15 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(ii) The notional basic salary considered for calculation of PLIS amounts for the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 is totally non-existing and hypothetical.

(iii) Since workmen were getting certain amount of Ex-gratia and productive Incentive Scheme (PIS), the change unilaterally made for payment of PLIS in-lieu of ex-gratia amount is illegal change in the service condition for which, no notice under Section 9-A nor any understanding with the recognized union was made.

(iv) The PLIS amount paid in other Oil PSUs is based on different calculation. BPCL management did not offer discussions to justify their hypothetical manners and ignored and demand of the unions to consider the Actual Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance for calculation of PLIS."

4. It was stated that the Union will go one one day strike on 14. 2007. Though notice dated 30.3.2007 was addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director at Mumbai and copy was marked to the writ petitioner, who is the Chief Manager - HRS, the petitioner has chosen to send a reply only on 04. 2007, which is also filed in the typed set of papers. According to the reply, the workmen were aware of the dispute with reference to additional PLIS is pending for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai and the petitioner Corporation is a declared Public Utility Service in terms of Section 2(1)(n) of the I.D. Act and any strike during the pendency of a dispute before a Tribunal renders the strike illegal under the provisions of the I.D. Act. The workmen were also further warned in paragraph 6 of the said letter, which is reproduced below:

"In the event of workmen taking part in the strike, for the reasons explained above, the strike would be deemed to be illegal.

Any participation of the workmen in the strike will attract deductions of wages and allowances on the principles of "No work No pay". Additionally, the management reserves the right to deduct from the salaries of the striking workmen penal deductions of wages and allowances up to eight days for every day of strike, either collectively or otherwise.

This would be in addition to any disciplinary action as may be warranted and deemed fit under the circumstances."

When the writ petitioner Management has taken all the steps that are available to them under law, it is not clear as to why they should come to this Court seeking for declaration that the strike notice dated 30.3.2007 is illegal and violative of Section 23 of I.D. Act in view of the pending refe