O R D E R

The writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.250 of 2003 dated 11.10.2011, declaring the lockout by the second respondent management with effect from 02.05.2002 was correct and that the workers are not entitled to get any relief.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered trade union and it represents the workmen employed in the 2nd respondent management. In order to get better service conditions, the workmen employed in the 2nd respondent management joined INTUC union and upon its formation, a flag hoisting function was held on 05.12.2011. This was not liked by the 2nd respondent management and in order to break the unity among the workers as they joined a trade union, the 2nd respondent management was treating the workers badly and inhumanly. As soon as the workmen joined the INTUC union, the 2nd respondent management started its vindictive actions against the leading members. The workmen resorted to indefinite strike on

24.12.2001 against the vindictive actions unleashed by the management. The second respondent management in order to end the indefinite fast came forward to look into the grievances of the workmen and assured that their needs will be considered. Believing the words of the 2nd respondent management, the workmen returned to work with effect from 14.02.2002. However, the workmen were unhappy over the activities of the INTUC union and hence, they joined the petitioner union on 11.03.2002. The 2nd respondent has filed O.S.No.505 of 2002 before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore as against the workmen. The 2nd respondent management instigated the workmen who are loyal to the management to go in for a stay in strike inside the factory premises from 29.04.2002 onwards and citing the same, the 2 nd respondent declared lockout on and from 02.05.2002.

3. As soon as lockout was declared, the 2nd respondent management, removed the machineries from the factory and started a new business under the name and style of M/s.Bullet Paper Inpack at the place called Vellakinar and provided employment to the workmen who were favourable to the management. The lockout declared on and from 02.05.2002 was continued indefinitely and the members of the petitioner union were rendered jobless. In such circumstances, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging the illegal lockout declared by the 2nd respondent management. Upon failure of conciliation talks, the Labour & Employment Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.(D) No.420 dated 08.04.2003 referred the Industrial Dispute regarding the illegal lockout for adjudication to the 1st respondent/Labour Court. The 1st respondent/Labour Court took up the said Industrial Dispute on its files as I.D.No.250 of 2003.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while filing statement of claims, the petitioner inadvertently filed the same captioning it as “Claim Petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947” and in the prayer portion, instead of praying to declare the lockout as illegal, relief of reinstatement with back wages was sought for the workmen. Subsequently, realizing the mistake that had crept in the Claim Statement, the petitioner filed I.A.No.561 of 2006, praying for amendment and the same was dismissed by the 1st respondent by its order dated 13.11.2008. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed another I.A. being I.A.No.751 of 2006 to implead the petitioner as a party. The 1st respondent by its order dated 13.11.2008 dismissed the said I.A. In the Labour Court, on the side of the petitioner, the General Secretary of the petitioner Sangam was examined as W.W.1 and Exhibits W.1 to W.28. On the side of the 2nd respondent management, three witness were examined as M.W.1 to M.W.3 and Exhibits M.1 to M.36 was marked.

5. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner union are entitled to full wages for the period of the said lockout and the findings of t