KAIRA CAN COMPANY LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, employer, first party in Reference (IT.) No. 9/2007 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Demand Case No. 14/2006 and the order under reference made by the respondent No. 2 on February 23, 2007 referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, wherein it was marked as Reference (IT.) No. 9/2007 on various grounds including non-reflection of lis between the parties.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition are set out as under: (1) The petitioner employer is a limited company and the second party are the workmen in the said Company. There was a settlement between the parties on January 8, 2003 and the said settlement was for the period from October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005. On July 11, 2005 the respondent No. 3 Union gave notice of termination of settlement after issuing notice for termination. The respondent No. 3 raised demand before the petitioner company vide their communication dated August 10, 2005 and the talks were going on. The petitioner has contended that as the communications were going on for settling the dispute in the wake of termination of settlement notice, the union and the workmen should have restrained themselves from resorting to coercive steps including going on strike. The workmen respondent No. 3 Union gave notice of strike on November 24, 2005 which included several programmes of demonstration and agitation. The management on November 28, 2005 requested the Union not to resort to strike in view of the settlement operating between the parties on December 3, 2005. A letter was sent to the petitioner company by the respondent No. 3 indicating that the workmen will go on Fast with effect from December 12, 2005. The Company displayed on its notice board on December 5, 2005, December 7, 2005 and February 1,2006 urging the workmen not to go on illegal strike and not to indulge in unfair labour practice. The Union leaders prevented workmen from resuming their duties on February 2, 2006. Ultimately, the petitioner as well as the workmen struck settlement which was reduced in writing and executed on March 13, 2006. This settlement had its tenure of 3 years and as per Clause 10(4) of the settlement, the parties agreed that the same shall have effect from October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2008 and demand of whatsoever nature effecting any financial burden upon the company if raised by the respondent No. 3 Union it shall not be maintained as per the relevant Clauses of the settlement. The Union on the very same day i.e. on March 13, 2006 issued notice raising demand for wages for the period for which the workmen were prevented from working. It was the say of the petitioner company that the workmen were in fact on strike for the said period and it was therefore, not so-called lockout as sought to be dubbed by the workmen for recovering wages for the said period. The dispute itself ought not to have been raised as the settlement dated March 13, 2006 clearly envisaged that no demand would be raised by the Union so as to create any financial burden upon the Company. The settlement being package deal there ought not to have been any demand in such a nature. In the conciliation proceedings started in the form of Demand Case No. 14/2006 wherein also the petitioner company struck to its stand that the workmen were not entitled to raise this dispute in the light of the valid settlement which inures as on date and which prevents workmen from raising any demand that may have impact upon the financial condition of the company and the workmen were not entitled to the wages for the period as they, of their own accord, did not attend duty and were on strike. The strike period is wrongly said to be lock out and on that basis the wages have been demanded. The conciliation proceedings failed and, therefore, the State referred the matter for adjudication vide its order on February 23, 2007 where the company is to pay the wages for the period of lockout from January 21, 2006 to February 10, 2006. The said reference was marked as Reference (I.T.) No. 9/2007, the settlement of claim and written statement on behalf of the employer also were filed. In such written statement, the employer also contended that the strike was illegal strike and it was not lockout at all and hence the employer was not liable to pay the wages for the period of so-called lockout which in fact was a strike. The company had to put an end to the services of the 5 workmen as it was very difficult to continue them in job as per the say of the Company. The workmen, therefore, have made appropriate complaints as during the pendency of the Reference, Company had put an end to the services of the workmen without appropriate procedure including that of seeking approval from the competent Court.

(3.) The petitioner company, therefore, being aggrieved with the very raising of demands, conducting of the conciliation proceedings in the form of Demand Case No. 14/2006 and the order of Reference dated February 23, 2007, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the same.