EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. It has a factory at ambarnath, which was engaged in the business of manufacturing of E. O. T. Cranes. The workmen employed in the factory were represented by the Association of Engineering workers, a recognised Union under the m. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971, the respondent no. 3 herein. The petitioners signed various settlements with the said Union. The last such settlement was signed on December 24, 1986 which expired in June, 1989. A fresh charter of demands was submitted on July 27, 1989. The petitioners could not meet with the demands as according to them they were incurring heavy losses and that at the material time there were accumulated losses of Rs. 11. 05 crores. It is contended by the petitioners that as the demands of the workmen were not met the workmen started resorting to various unlawful activities. Various meetings took place between the representative of the petitioners and the office bearers of the recognised Union, wherein they were examined and the circumstances under which the said factory undertaking was not in a position to meet their demand. It was pointed out according to the petitioners that unless the recognised union was agreeable for imposition of ceiling of D. A. as also reduction in manpower, etc. , the factory would not be economically viable. The respondent No. 3 did not accept the said demands inasmuch as the workmen failed to see the petitioners point of view, but on the contrary resorted to various types of unlawful activities.

(2.) THE petitioners filed complaint bearing no. 368 of 1991 before the Industrial Court, thane. An ad interim injunction was obtained against the office bearers and the Union. It is contended that on account of the unlawful activities the entire atmosphere in the factory at Ambarnath was tense as a consequence thereto there was no discipline whatsoever in the factory. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 Union/member employees continued to indulge in various unfair labour practices despite the order of injunction. The petitioners were compelled to file Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 126 of 1991 against the respondent No. 3 Union and its members before the Labour Court,. Thane. As the respondent No. 3 Union and their workmen did not concede the petitioners demand for imposition of ceiling on D. A. and reduction in manpower, etc. , the petitioners issued a notice of lock-out dated September 28, 1991. Simultaneously operations of manufacturing activities were also suspended with immediate effect. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners have assigned reasons for suspension of operation as well as declaring lock-out of the factory which are self explanatory.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 Union for the first time by its letter dated November 20, 1991 claimed that majority of the workmen of the factory had become its members and the petitioners should negotiate and sign settlement with the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 which was recognised Union filed a complaint being complaint No. 10 of 1992 and obtained an ad-interim order restraining the company from signing any settlement with any other Union. That order was passed on January 7, 1992. It is the case of the petitioners that as the factory/undertaking was in financial doldrums and the same had become economically non-viable, the petitioners decided to close down the factory. An application was moved under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. The State Government, however, rejected the application vide order dated March 21, 1992. A review was preferred against the said order, which was also dismissed. The petitioners contend that they were astonished when on September 23, 1992 the respondent no. 1 issued two orders, the first being an order under Section 10 (l) (d) of the Industrial disputes Act. By the said order the charter of demands raised by the respondent No. 2 was referred for adjudication of the Industrial tribunal at Thane. In so far as the second order is concerned, it was issued under Section 10 (3)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prohibiting the continuation of lock-out at the said factory. It is the case of the petitioners that the said two orders had been issued by the respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent No. 2 Union. It is pointed out that the charter of demand served by respondent No. 3 has not been referred by the respondent No. 1. It is contended that the respondent No. 3 being the sole collective bargaining agent, the respondent No. 2 had no right whatsoever in law to raise any general charter of demands in relation to the workmen working in the factory. The petitioners have challenged the said orders by the present Writ petition which was admitted on November 18, 1992. This Court pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition granted stay in so far as order dated September 23, 1992 prohibiting lock-out.