CERA SANITARYWARE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Civil Application No. 15907 of 2020 has been filed by the Company Cera Sanitaryware Limited for issuing a writ of mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature requiring the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to enforce the Notification dtd. 16/10/2020 prohibiting strike and to initiate proceedings for offences punishable under Sec.26, 27, 28, 29 and 25 (U) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the respondent No.4, the Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha, a Union and further direct the Union and its office bearers to call off the illegal and unjustified strike. The Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (hereinafter referred to as "a Union") has filed Special Civil Application No. 16326 of 2020 for a prayer to quash and set aside the same Notification dtd. 16/10/2020 and the amendment dtd. 6/11/2020 prohibiting strike under Sec. 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and further hold that the notification prohibiting strike is violative of the fundamental rights. The direction is also prayed for to direct the respondent - State to refer the demands raised by the Union in its letters dtd. 4/8/2020 and 26/8/2020 as well as to refer the term of reference that "Was there an illegal lockout and / or refusal of work by the respondent company from 29/9/2020 and whether the workmen are entitled to the wages and all other benefits till they are permitted to resume work".

(2.) Facts in brief in both the petitions would indicate that it is the case of the Company, Cera Sanitaryware Limited, that the Company which is engaged in manufacturing of sanitarywares, tiles etc., has 1350 shop floor workers. Such workers were members of the Akhil Gujarat General Majdoor Sangh. A settlement was arrived at with the Union in the course of conciliation proceedings under Sec.18(3) on 4/8/2017 with regard to wages and other conditions of service. The duration of the settlement was four years commencing from 1/9/2017 upto 31/8/2021. As per the terms of the settlement the management and the workmen had agreed that any dispute would be resolved through constitutional means. The settlement also included a term which clarified that the incentive payment will not be treated as wages and the management will be entitled to alter the scheme of settlement.

(3.) Mr.K.M.Patel, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Varun Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, in support of the prayers would submit that sec. 23(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, envisages that the workmen either cannot go on a strike or the management cannot declare a lockout in respect of matters covered by the settlement and award during the operation period of the settlement. Resorting to the provisions of Sec.24 (1) (i) of the Act, Mr.Patel, learned Senior Advocate, would submit that the same is illegal. Referring to the terms of the settlement, Mr.Patel, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the currency of the settlement entered into during the conciliation proceedings was for a period of four years from 1/9/2017 upto 31/8/2021, the settlement was binding, the workmen in accordance with the settlement could not have resorted to strike and therefore the action of the workmen on resorting to a strike on 28/9/2020 was bad. The strike was illegal and unjustified. Notices were given to the workmen in the daily newspapers asking and appealing the workmen to call off the strike and resume work lest expose themselves to disciplinary proceedings.