HAL EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the award of the Industrial tribunal, Lucknow made in Adj. Case No. 7708 of 1983 on 28/4/1984. The admitted facts are that the respondent declared lockout from 4/6/1978/5/6/19788 and wages to the workmen were deducted for that period. An industrial dispute was raised which came to be referred under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (28 of 1947, the State Act which is equivalent to Section 10 (l) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the central Act. The tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record and appreciating the diverse contentions raised by the counsel on either side, recorded, as a fact, the finding that the lockout declared by the respondent w. e. f. 4/6/1978/5/6/19788 to 18/6/1978 was both just and lawful; hence the question of any relief to the workmen does not arise.

(2.) It is contended by Shri A. K. Goel, the learned counsel for the appellant, that on the own showing of the respondents it is not a case of total strike by the rival unions; there was production to the extent of 15% which would show that the strike which ended on 31/5/1978 and the lockout declared on 4/6/1978/5/6/1978 was not due to continuing strike and that, therefore, the management was not justified in reaching the conclusion without following the procedure prescribed under Section 6-S (2 of the State Act which is equivalent to Section 22 (3 of the central Act, to declarelockout. With a view to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the Act.

(3.) Section 22 falls in Ch. V which deals with strikes and lockouts. It a prohibits strikes and says that no person employed in public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract as enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Ss. (1 thereof. Ss. (2 prohibits declaration of lockout for the circumstances mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Ss. (2. Sub- section (3 postulates that: