MAULESH G SHAH Vs. GUJARAT KAMDAR RAHAT SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged an award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 2.6.2004. Brief facts are as under:

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Karia for respondent No.1 opposed the petition contending that the Labour Court has come to factual findings which are not perverse. Ultimately, the unit never restarted its manufacturing activity virtually amounting to closure. The workmen were terminated without following due procedure. The closure was also not authorized by the competent authority. In short, according to him, the Labour Court committed no error.

(3.) Having thus heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, I find that from the very beginning the case of the Union was that there had been an illegal lock-out. Midway through the proceedings, the Union cannot change the track and contend that it was a case of closure and illegal termination of the workmen. In the present proceedings, at least I shall have to proceed on the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record. The Labour Court having come to the conclusion that this was a case of illegal lock-out by the employer with effect from 3.10.93, when such findings are not shown to be perverse, I shall proceed on such basis. The only question then is, under such circumstances, could the Labour Court have awarded compensation for the man-days lost by the workmen. Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act pertains to illegal strikes and lockouts. Sub-section (1) thereof provides the case where the strike or lockout shall be illegal. Section 26 of the Industrial Disputes Act pertains to penalty for illegal strikes and lock-outs. Sub-section (2) thereof reads as under: