RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS LIMITED Vs. RAMESH KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides. Rule. By consent the petition is disposed of finally.

(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 30th March 2002 and 24th June 2002 passed by the 4th Labour Court, Mumbai and the President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Misc. Criminal Complaint ULP No. 27 of 2002 and Revision Application ULP No. 87 of 2002 respectively. The petitioners have challenged the issuance of the process under Section 48 (1) of the M. R. T. U. and PULP Act, 1971 in the aforesaid criminal complaint filed by the respondent No. 1, an employee of the petitioners. The petitioners had challenged the issuance of the process against the petitioners who were accused in the said complaint and, therefore, they filed the aforesaid revision application under Section 44 of the Act. The learned President, Industrial Court, after hearing the parties dismissed the revision by an exhaustive judgment which is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director and the Chief Personnel Manager of the petitioner company respectively. The petitioner company is a government undertaking and the majority of the share holding of the company is with the Union of India. The company is engaged in mainly manufacturing of fertilisers employing more than 3000 workers in its organisation. From the facts averred in the proceedings, it appears that the employees had resorted to a strike from 22nd October to 24th October 1997 to press their demands for bonus. It further appears that before going on strike, the employees union, RCF employees' Union, had given a notice on 6th October 1997 to the petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners, the said strike was unwarranted and uncalled for and, therefore, they had approached the Conciliation Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It further appears that the strike commenced and continued for the aforesaid three days in spite of pendency of the Conciliation Proceedings. The petitioner, therefore, filed a Reference under Section 25 read with Section 24 of the M. R. T. U. and PULP Act, 1971 for declaration that the said strike was illegal. It further appears that the Labour Court by its interim order dated 22nd October 1997, prima facie found that the strike was illegal and, therefore, passed an order restraining the members of the said union from going on strike.