SUBHASH SILK MILLS LIMITED Vs. MILL MAZDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 29th July, 1999 whereby the Industrial Court has allowed the Complaint (ULP) No. 214 of 1998 filed by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, the recognised Union. The Industrial Court has held that the petitioners herein are engaged in unfair labour practices, set out under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and PULP Act and therefore directed the petitioners to cease and desist from the unfair labour practices. The petitioners have also been directed to lift the lock-out effected from 20th February, 1998 in the establishment within a period of 48 hours from the instant declaration. The petitioners have been further directed to pay wages along with the monetary benefits from the date of imposition of the lock-out till the date of their resuming normal duties, along with interest at 12% p. a. deducting therefrom any payment made against the wages during the said period, if any. By the same order Complaint (ULP) No. 273 of 1998 filed by some workers has been dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) THE Industrial Court in its order has noted in paragraph 2 that in both the complaints the Court was called upon to decide common question of facts and law. In these circumstances the Court has proceeded to dispose of the complaint by a common judgment after recording common evidence. The Industrial Court after holding the complaint by the workmen as not maintainable, yet proceeded while answering the Issues to observe that the evidence led by the workers could not be ignored as that would mean denial of justice to the workers. There are some other observations in para 11 of the Order which I do not propose to advert to. The Industrial Court, thereafter, on consideration of the material before it came to hold in paragraph 29, that the suspension of operation from 20th February, 1998 had all the trappings of a lock-out. This conclusion followed from the findings given by the Industrial Court that there was a demand made by the respondents Mill, to call on the workers to accept the alternative work and in that context the lock out imposed was to make the worker to see its point of view, by adopting coercive process. This point had to be considered more so as the petitioners herein in their written statement in answer to the complaint filed by the workmen had taken the plea without prejudice, that the notice of lock out is only given by way of abundant precaution and in fact there is no lock-out but merely a suspension of operations, as there is no demand placed on the employees as contemplated in the definition of lock-out. The Industrial Court thereafter in paragraph 32 has given a finding that the Company under the guise of lock out was intending to impose a closure. In so giving the finding, the Industrial Court has relied on the evidence both oral and documentary led before it. On behalf of the petitioners they had examined their General Manager whose evidence for reasons set out in the order was rejected by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court also relied on the Exhibit U-76. Exhibit U-76" is the prospectus issued by the petitioners, after it was converted from a private limited company into a public limited company and had invited the public to subscribe to its share capital. The Industrial Court had relied on the said Exhibit to arrive at the conclusion that in fact the Company wanted to close the present unit and shift the same to the new unit started at Khopoli. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners that the proposal was dropped was rejected.

(3.) WITH the above background, the petition and the contentions raised need to be dealt with. Before that I must also advert to the Order of this Court dated 23rd September, 1999 during the pendency of this petition, based on the Minute of the Order filed by the parties to the petition and their Counsel. In terms of the said minutes, it was agreed that every workman would execute an undertaking in the proforma marked Exhibit 1. The Undertaking was to be executed and furnished to the Company before resuming duty as per the agreed schedule. On behalf of the respondents, their learned Counsel has made statement that all the workers have given such an undertaking. In terms of the minutes of the order, the time table for resumption of work in the phased manner was also laid down. In other words, in so far as the resumption of work or reopening of the factory, was covered by the order dated 23rd September, 1999. The Company has not adhered to the order and consequently contempt petition has been also filed. It must, however, be made clear that the same was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and all contentions were kept open.