MODISTONE LIMITED Vs. MODISTONE EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27th November, 1988 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1988, these Letters Patent Appeals are filed. L. P. A. No. 6 of 1999 has been filed by the Modistone Ltd. (hereafter, referred to as Company) while L. P. A. No. 111 of 1999 is filed by the Modistone Employees Union (hereafter, referred to as Union) as wages were denied to the workers from the date of alleged lock out i. e. 8-10-1998 till 1-3-1999. In these Letters Patent Appeal, mainly, the following points arise:---

(2.) ON 28-8-97, the Union filed Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 766 of 1997 for a declaration that the company has engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and. P. U. L. P. Act and for a direction not to declare any lock out, or temporary or permanent closure or suspension or discontinuance of operation and not to terminate services of the workmen without following the due process of law. On 2-9-97, the company issued the lock out notice under section 24 (2) of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act covering factory, central office, office at Sewree and godown at Fesberry Road, Sewree. Without prejudice, the Managements case was that discontinuance of manufacturing and other operations have gone beyond the control of the management and due to reasons wholly attributable to the workmen, it is not a lock out in the legal sense. However, by way of abundant caution, the notice to discontinue manufacturing and other operations i. e. to effect a lock out with effect from 8-10-97 for the reasons stated in the Annexure "a" was given. The statement of reasons mentioned 10/11 reasons. Hence, another complaint (U. L. P.) No. 857 of 1997 came to be filed by the union. The said complaint came to be filed under section 28 read with Item 6 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. It was alleged in the said complaint that though it was alleged in the notice that it was not a lockout, yet lock-out notice is given resulting in cessation of work. This is contrary to the arbitration agreement/award dated 21-1-95 published on 4-7-96 and particularly, Clause 16 (b) thereof. In view of the Award, the company is bound to pay wages and other benefits as per the award. But it is denied. This amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV and Item 6 of Schedule II. The refusal of work to employees in contravention of the settlement/award is illegal and it also amounts to contravening Item 10 of Schedule IV as workers are forced to remain idle and out of employment by force. It is averred that it is not lock-out in the legal sense. Lockout has to be by way of retaliation to the workers demands. In the present case, there was no demand of the workmen. The reasons for the lock-out mentioned in the lock-out notice are totally false. They are invented and are not existing. The various documents and the actions of the company showed that the company is not interested in continuing the production and in order to avoid the legal liabilities of payment to workmen, farce of lock-out is made. The company has not taken any legal steps for lay-off, retrenchment temporary or permanent closure, etc. by making necessary application and getting permissions. This was required under sections 25-M, 25-N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter, referred to as the "i. D. Act" ). The company is acting with mala fide intention to undermine the bargaining power of the union and to break workers unity and with this ulterior motive the lock out is declared.

(3.) THE company filed written statement. It denied commission of any unfair labour practice. It was contended that the company is not guilty of any of the alleged unfair labour practices. Lock-out cannot be deemed to be illegal unless it is declared by the competent Court and 48 hours notice is given in view of Item 6 of Schedule II. It is denied that it has failed to implement any of the award/settlement or agreement. It is contended that there was no violation of Clause 16 (b) of the Jamdar Award dated 21-1-1995 in not paying wages of the month of August, 1997. It has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of lock-out notice issued by the company. It is contended that the allegations made of unfair labour practices are all vague. It is contended that after giving notice of lock-out the company has dispensed with the attendance of the workmen in the interest of safety of the companys property, plant and machinery and safety of the officers. The said notice is given without prejudice to the managements contention that discontinuance of manufacturing and other operation is not a lock-out in the legal sense as the circumstances clearly emerged beyond the control of the management and for reasons wholly attributable to the workers. The union/workers were responsible for disruptive activities and stoppage of production and their activities increased the financial difficulties of the company. It was denied that there was any mala fide intention or ulterior motive in declaring the lock-out. It was denied that the company has effected any lay-off, retrenchment or temporary or permanent closure. It was, therefore, contended that the provisions of sections 25-M, 25-N and 25-O of the I. D. Act are not attracted.