ORDER

Sri.S.N.Murthy. learned Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Somashekar for the petitioner has appeared through video conferencing.

Sri.K.P.Yoganna., learned AGA for respondent No.1 has appeared in person.

Notice to respondent No.2 was issued on 21.07.2014. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. The second respondent has neither made any efforts to engage the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

2. The short facts are these:

The petitioner is a manufacturer of springs for the automobile industry. There was a settlement between the petitioner and the second respondent union which was valid up to 31.03.2014. Despite the settlement, the union gave a strike notice. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Union. On 03.03.2014, the union issued a notice informing the petitioner that they would go on a tool down strike in support of contract workers from 06.03.2014 for which the petitioner informed them that such a strike would violate the settlement dated 07.06.2011. On the sixth day of March 2011, the management declared a partial lockout for about eighty workmen out of seven hundred sixty-two total workforces. The union raised a dispute on the issue of lockout. In the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner made it clear that it had declared lockout only about eighty workmen. The Conciliation Officer treated all the workmen including contract workmen were locked out. The conciliation failed, and the Conciliation Officer sent a failure report along with a factual report. The government passed the ordered reference on 05.04.2014. It is this order that is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of a writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the petition papers with utmost care.

3. The issue falls around a narrow compass. The grievance of the petitioner is about the point of reference. The government vide order dated 05.04.2014 referred the matter for adjudication. Perused the order with utmost care. It is at Annexure-J. A perusal of the point of dispute would disclose that the petitioner is bound by the points of dispute referred for adjudication under section 10 (4) of the I.D. Act. By the point of reference, the petitioner cannot contend that only a section of the workmen were locked out however, the points of reference state that all were represented by the union have been locked out and the management is called upon to justify the same. This is unsustainable. The demands of the union pertain to contract laborers who are not employees of the petitioner company. When the dispute pertains to the justification of partial lockout imposed by the petitioner in respect of eighty employees as indicated in the lockout notice dated 06.03.2014 the government committed an error by non- application of mind in referring to the dispute as though there was a total lockout. Furthermore, the government erred in calling upon the petitioner to justify not conceding the demands of the contract labor on their wage structure. Viewed from any angle, the point of reference cannot be sustained, and it requires to be quashed.

4. The Writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated:05.04.2014 in ¸ÀASÉå:PÁE/247/LrJA/2014 vide Annexure-J is quashed.

5. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.