A strike notice that addresses grievances regarding non-implementation of existing agreements does not constitute an illegal strike under the Maharashtra Act if it does not seek to modify any covered terms.

1 The appellant - Company, on grant of leave to appeal under Art.136 of the Constitution of India, has brought in challenge the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who allowed writ petition filed by Respondent 1 - Union under Art.227 of the Constitution of India and quashed the decision of the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Thane. By the said decision, the First Labour Court, Thane, took the view on an application moved by the appellant - Company that Respondent 1 - Union had gone on an illegal strike from 30-3-1983 pursuant to the strike notice dated 14-3-1983. In the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the High Court took the contrary view and held that the appellant had failed to establish that the strike in question was illegal.

2 In order to appreciate the grievances of the appellant against the decision of the High Court, it will be necessary to have a glance at the background facts.

3 Introductory facts
The appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of chemicals at Thane in the State of Maharashtra since more than 38 years. Respondent 1 is a workers' union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 . Respondent 1 - Union had submitted a charter of demands to the appellant on 1-4-1981. During negotiations, a settlement was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer between the parties on 8-3-1982. The said settlement was valid up to December 1984. The settlement, inter alia, amongst others, covered the following two demands: (i) Demand 14 - privilege leave; (ii) Demand 26 - medical checkup. It is the case of the appellant - Company that during the subsistence of the aforesaid settlement, Respondent 1 - Union sent a letter of demand to the Factory Manager of the appellant - Company on 14-3-1983. As per the said letter, various demands were raised and it was submitted by Respondent 1 - Union that it would go on strike on the expiry of 14 days from the date of service of the notice. According to Respondent 1, the said notice was to be considered as notice for going on strike. The Factory Manager of the appellant - Company sent a reply to the notice of Respondent 1 on 23-3-1983. Respondent 1 - Union, having gone on strike from 30-3-1983, sent a replication on 2-4-1983.

4 The appellant - Company which is governed by the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Maharashtra Act") filed an application under S.25 of the Maharashtra Act before the Labour Court, Thane, seeking a declaration that Respondent 1 - Union had gone on an illegal strike. In the said application, the appellant's case was that the said strike was illegal under S.24(1)(i)(a) and (i) of the Maharashtra Act. The said application was moved as per the provisions of S.24(1) read with S.25(1) of the Maharashtra Act.

5 The Labour Court after hearing the parties, by its order dated 20-5-1983 came to the conclusion that the letter dated 14-3-1983 was not a strike notice as required by law and was also contrary to the provisions of S.24(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Act. It, therefore, declared that the strike resorted to by the workmen and the staff members with effect from 30-3-1983 was illegal.

6 Respondent 1 challenged the said order of the Labour Court in the aforesaid writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 2171 of 1983 in the High Court. As noted earlier, learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order of the Labour Court and held that the strike was not illegal. The said decision was rendered on 27-11-1992. It is this decision which is brought on the anvil of scrutiny of this Court in this appeal.

7 Rival contentions
Shri M. C. Bhandare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the Labour Court was perfectly justified in taking the view that the impugned notice dated 14-3-1983 was not legal and valid a