VISHALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a partnership firm carrying on business of running a restaurant at Narol in city of Ahmedabad in the name and style of "Vishala". The respondent no.1 is the State of Gujarat through the Secretary, Labour Department, and respondent no.2 is the union of workmen which represents the workmen engaged under the petitioner. The petition seeks to challenge the order dated 21st May 1998 issued by respondent no.1 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said order is a composite order referring the dispute mentioned in the Schedule thereto order for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal No.1, Ahmedabad, and simultaneously prohibiting the continuance of lock out under section 10(3) of the said Act. Mr K.M. Patel has appeared for the petitioner. Mr A.S. Dave has appeared for respondent no.1 and Mr Mukul Sinha for respondent no.2.

(2.) The principal submission of Mr Patel is that there were continuous acts of indiscipline on the part of the employees working under the petitioner. That led the petitioner to issue a notice dated 12th March 1998 which was addressed to all the employees working under the petitioner. It narrates various acts of indiscipline and finally in the last but one para states that a lock out is being declared with respect to the employees who are mentioned thereafter. It is further stated therein that in case the workmen concerned give the undertaking, as expected by the management, they will be permitted to rejoin. Thereafter names of 22 workmen are mentioned under the caption "workmen covered under lock out." In the last paragraph it is stated that the lock out will be continued until an undertaking for good conduct is given and on the same being given, the workmen concerned will be permitted to rejoin. Thereafter second notice was issued on 19.3.1998. That notice also states at the top that it is addressed to all workmen and again various acts of indiscipline are mentioned and in the last paragraph it is stated therein that the above misdemeanors on the part of the workmen are increasing and that the workmen who are placed under the lock out are forcibily entering into the hotel establishment and indulging into acts of violence. It is therefore decided that so long as all the workers do not give the guarantee, the work will remain suspended as a temporary measure and the workers will not be permitted to enter the establishment until they give the undertaking. The workers are asked to give the undertaking at the earliest so that they can join on duty. Thereafter the expected undertaking is mentioned in a particular form. It principally expects each workman to state that he has read the notice put up by the management on 19.3.1998 and in the event he is allowed to enter the establishment he will do his duties regularly, he will not indulge into indiscipline or illegal acts and will follow the rules and regulations of the establishment fully. It further states that the workman concerned will not remain at the place of work on the date of weekly off or after working hours on other days. I am told that three out of 22 workmen who are covered in the first notice and 45 out of 125 workmen in the second notice have so far given the undertaking and they have been permitted to join the petitioner establishment. During the pendency of the matter in this Court, efforts were made to settle the matter amicably, but that could not succeed. Mr Sinha, learned advocate for respondent no.2 has however assured that as and when the workmen are allowed to resume their duties, they will resume the work peacefully.

(3.) The Reference order in the Schedule thereto mentions the dispute referred for adjudication as follows:-