Back
S.P. Khare, J.
Mohan Jute Mills Ltd.
vs
State Of M.P. And Ors.
DECIDED ON : 1 September, 1999
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 24(3) - M.P. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1960 - SECTION 31 - Whether the lockout declared by the petitioner is legal or not would depend upon the decision whether there was strike and it was illegal. The question whether the lockout is legal or not would also require to be decided by the Labour Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a jute mill owner, declared a lockout after the workers adopted a "go-slow" tactic, which the petitioner claimed amounted to an illegal strike. The Deputy Labour Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for contravening Section 25P(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Labour Commissioner passed an order for recovery of the arrears of wages of the workers from March 29, 1999 to June 3, 1999.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the question of whether the strike was legal or illegal and whether the lockout was justified or unjustified was a question of fact to be decided by the Labour Court, and that the High Court could not give its findings on those issues. The court also held that the workers were entitled to some relief until the points relating to strike, lockout, and closure were decided, and directed the Deputy Labour Commissioner to recover half of the amount from the petitioner for which he had passed the order and issued the revenue recovery certificate.
Issues: 1. Whether the lockout declared by the petitioner was legal or not. 2. Whether the workers were entitled to some relief until the points relating to strike, lockout, and closure were decided.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The question of whether the strike was legal or illegal and whether the lockout was justified or unjustified was a question of fact to be decided by the Labour Court. 2. The workers were entitled to some relief until the points relating to strike, lockout, and closure were decided.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The court directed the Deputy Labour Commissioner to recover half of the amount from the petitioner for which he had passed the order and issued the revenue recovery certificate. The petitioner was directed to commence the process to withdraw the lockout as early as possible and the Labour Court was directed to decide the dispute on the points mentioned above as early as possible after recording the evidence of both sides.
S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated May 10, 1999 (Annexure P-18) of the Industrial Court, Raipur, order dated June 1, 1999 (Annexure P-14) of the Labour Commissioner, Indore, Revenue Recovery Certificate dated June 10, 1999 (Annexure P-16) and order dated July 12, 1999 of the Tehsildar, Raigarh (Annexure P-18).
2. The petitioner is running a Jute Mill at Raigarh. It was running into losses. It did not pay the dearness allowance to the workers. The Union of the mill gave a notice dated March 4, 1999 for strike for one day. The petitioner challenged it under Section 31 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. By an interim order dated March 5, 1999, the Labour Court, Bilaspur, restrained the Union from going on strike. The workers did not proceed on strike. By notice dated March 29, 1999 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner declared the "Lockout". In the notice, it was mentioned that the "lockout" is being declared because the workers adopted the step of "go slow" in their work and that amounts to the strike. It was also mentioned that this "go-slow" was causing considerable loss to the petitioner.
3. The respondent No. 4, Deputy Labour Commissioner issued a show-cause notice dated March 30, 1999 to the petitioner for contravening Sub-section (6) of Section 25P of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the respondent No. 4, the declaration of lockout in the notice (Annexure P-9) without specifying the period for which the lockout was to continue amounts to "closing down" of the undertaking and since no permission of the State Government was obtained for the closure, it is illegal. The petitioner contends that it is not closure but lockout in view of the illegal strike by the workers by adopting the "go-slow" tactic.
4. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 31 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, before the Labour Court, Bilaspur challenging the notice of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The Labour Court granted an interim order against the said notice. This order of the Labour Court was stayed by Industrial Court under Section 67 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1960 by the impugned order dated May 10, 1999. Thereafter, the Labour Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated June 1, 1999 for recovery of the arrears of wages of the workers from March 29, 1999 to June 3, 1999. The amount of arrears for this period is Rs. 1,79,78,688/-. There were 1638 labourers working in this mill. As the petitioner did not pay this amount, the revenue recovery certificate has been issued.
5. The petitioner's case is that the workers proceeded on strike by adopting "go-slow" and this was an illegal strike. Therefore, the lockout declared by the petitioner is legal as provided under Section 24(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has unlawfully declared the lockout. There was no strike by the workers. They had not adopted any "go-slow" tactic. The lockout was not for a temporary period. It is still continuing. It amounts to closure of the undertaking.
7. The learned counsel for both the sides were heard. In Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, AIR 1995 SC 319 : 1995-I-LLJ-798, it has been held that whether the strike is legal or justified are questions of fact to be decided on the evidence on record. Under the Act, the question has to be decided by the industrial adjudicator, it being an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. Whether the strike is legal or illegal and justified or unjustified, are issues which fell for decision within the exclusive domain of the industrial adjudicator under the Act and it is not primarily for the High Court to give its findings on the said issues. The said issues had to be decided by taking the necessary evidence on the subject. Such an enquiry has to be conducted by the machinery which is primarily invested with the jurisdiction and du
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
