MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the companies act, 1956. It has its manufacturing activity, namely, the foundry unit as well as its machine tool unit both at harihar and it had employed about 1740 workmen. There were three unions in the said industrial establishment. The said three unions are arrayed as respondents 3, 4 and 5. Respondent 3 is a majority union. On account of general industrial recession in machine tool industry and also due to various severe competition for the products manufactured by the company both from the domestic manufacturers and also from imports of machines from abroad, the company suffered loss. They could not meet the statutory obligations. Power supply was disconnected for non-payment of electricity bills which brought the activities of the company to a total standstill. Petitioner-company was forced to lay-off all its workmen on 21-10-2000 and 23-10-2000 with the consent of the workmen/union. Thereafter, the petitioner-company was able to carry on its production activities partially by using diesel-generating set and by operating light machines only. Subsequently as that was not working economically all the workmen were laid off. After several rounds of talk between the trade union and the petitioner certain understandings were reached to try out from the difficult situation. The petitioner sought the co-operation of the workmen in this regard. Subsequently, the workmen indulged in arm twisting tactics like digging up trenches measuring 3 feet in depth and 2 feet in width in front of two gates of the company, one on the northern side and the other on the southern side with a view to forcibly prevent the movement of men, material, vehicles and other essential food articles, ingress and egress into the establishment including the residential colony area thereby affecting not only the normal production activities during the said lay-off period but also the normal life of the inmates in the residential colony of the petitioner- company. Subsequently, the agitating workmen took law into their hands and indulged in violent activities. The petitioner was constrained to approach civil court seeking an Orderof temporary injunction against the workmen. They were also constrained to file writ petition before this court as public interest litigation seeking urgent interim orders which were granted. In Orderto prevent any further damage to the properties of the company and other persons who are confined, the petitioner-company had to effect a lockout in all departments with immediate effect from 1st January, 2001. Then there was a conciliation meeting with the second respondent- authority. Parties appeared before them, put forth their respective cases and the conciliation officer reported to the government that conciliation has failed. On the basis of the said report, government passed Orderunder Secrion 10 (1) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), referring the dispute between the parties, namely, whether the lockout dated 1-1-2001 declared by the management is legal, acceptable, for adjudication to the labour court by their Orderdated 23-1-2001 as per Annexure-t. On the very same day the government proceeded to pass Orderunder Secrion 10 (3) of the act prohibiting the lockout with immediate effect, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-s. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Orderpassed under Secrion 10 (3) of the act prohibiting lockout as per Annexure-s has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER contends, when the lockout declared by the management was referred for adjudication to the labour court under Secrion 10 (1), the government had no jurisdiction to prohibit the very same subject-matter of reference by exercising power under Secrion 10 (3) of the act. Secondly, it is contended that the government without application of mind, without there being any material before it to justify such an action has passed the impugned order, therefore the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed detailed counter admitting the facts but denying the allegations made against them and contend that the lockout declared by the management is illegal and the conciliation having failed the government had no other option except to refer the dispute for adjudication to the labour court which they are obliged to do under Secrion 10 (1) of the act. After making such a declaration it was well- within the power of the government to pass Orderunder Secrion 10 (3) of the act prohibiting lockout in Orderto maintain industrial peace in the industrial establishment and therefore the action of the government in passing the impugned Orderprohibiting the lockout cannot be found fault with. Therefore, they have prayed for rejection of the writ petition.