POWERFLOW LIMITED Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the appeals were heard at length on merits at the initial stage of admission and being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) under the cloak of technicalities and procedural wrangles the respondents-workmen are intended to be deprived of their two times bread and thereby forced to starvation. The appellants with hands in gloves with their sister-concern have left no stone unturned in unnecessarily dragging the workmen to litigation with apparently oblique motive of tiring them in their genuine struggle of remaining alive. The appellants are shown to have succeeded in depriving the respondents-workmen from getting any job w.e.f. 26-9-1994, the day when they ventured to go on strike. Not deterred by the order of the labour court passed under Section 33-c of the Industrial Disputes Act and of the learned single judge in writ petition nos. 38720 to 38744 of 1995, the appellants have ventured to file the present appeal with the same object as noted herein above.

(3.) some of the facts necessary to appreciate the conduct of the appellants and the issue involved in the present case are that the appellants, along with their sister-concerns viz., M/s. Cumet pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Insucon ltd., Executed a memorandum of settlement Annexure-A with the respondents-workmen who were on strike w.e.f. 26-9-1994 persuant to their charter of demands dated 1-8-1993. The strike was prolonged and continued for more than 10 months. The respondents-workmen who were employed by M/s. Cumet pvt. Ltd. Were threatened with the closure of the factory and induced to enter into the settlement on the terms and conditions as specified in annexure-a. All the three companies and the respondents-workmen herein were parties to the said memorandum of settlement which inter alia provided amongst other things: