INDIAN HUME PIPE CO LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are a Public Limited Company. They manufacture cement concrete and steel pipes. They have factories all over India. One such factory is situated at Wadala, Bombay. It is distinct for the purposes of employment and service conditions. The petitioner employees at this factory some 547 operatives or daily-rated workmen and 80 monthly-rated staff. This petition is concerned with the latter.

(2.) On 30th October, 1978 the petitioner issued a notice of lock-out in accordance with the provisions of S. 24(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The notice expressed the petitioner's intention to effect a lock-out in all departments of its Wadala factory with effect from 3rd November, 1978 for the reasons stated in the statement annexed to it. This statement of reasons explained that from 28th July, 1978 welders, assistant welders, machine welders and gas cutters of the Wadala factory had started an agitation in respect of certain grievances. The statement of reasons set out what had happened from day to day. It set out incidents of disruption of the petitioner's work, of intimidation of its workmen and officers and of assaults thereon. The statement of reasons explained that in spite of the interim prohibitory orders restraining the workers from indulging in such illegal activities, they had continued to do so. Reduction in production had also been caused by go-slow tactics in the concrete department. The petitioner was incurring a loss of Rupees thirty to thirty-five thousand per day. The petitioner was left with no alternative but to close down the entire operations. It had therefore declared a lock-out at its Wadala factory with effect from 3rd November, 1978.

(3.) On 3rd November, 1978 the second respondent, a trade union representing the monthly-rated staff of the petitioner filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Bombay under S. 28(i), read with item 6 of Schedule II and item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The complaint stated that the said statement of reasons contained no allegations against the second respondent's members. The complaint submitted that the lock-out, in so far as it affected the 2nd respondent's members, was illegal. The complaint prayed that it should be declared that the notice dated 30th November, 1978 was bad insofar as it related to the members of second respondent and that the petitioners were bound to pay them their wages. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner the averments of the complaint were denied. The written statement submitted that the complainant sought to raise and agitate an industrial dispute regarding the justifiability of the lock-out. It submitted that the court was not entitled to sit over the decision of the petitioner in effecting the lock-out. In the written-statement, the petitioner gave reasons why it suspected that some members of the second respondent had been parties to the disturbances at the Wadala factory.