SIEMENS LIMITED Vs. GAJANAN VITHAL KONDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order dated 30th May, 1991, made by the First Labour Court, Thane, in Application (IDA) No. 119 of 1991 under the provisions of section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Company Act, which carries on business of manufacturing electrical engineering goods at Thane. The respondents 1 to 10 are employed in the petitioners factory at Thane. On 19th December, 1990, the petitioner gave a Notice of Notice of Lock-out, which was effected in respect of the workmen whose name were mentioned in Annexure I-A. The said annexure contained a list of about 534 workmen. The reasons for the lock-out were indicated in Annexure II. The reasons, inter alia were that, according to the petitioner, the concerned workmen had indulged in continuous agitation from or about April, 1990, and had resorted to several acts of indiscipline, which had made it impossible for the petitioner to run the factory with modicum of normalcy or discipline. The lock-out notice, given under the provisions of section 24 (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, became effective from 5th January, 1991. A copy of the lock- out notice was sent by the petitioner to each of the affected workmen, along with a covering letter dated 19th December, 1990. After indicating the fact of the lock-out, the fact that a copy of the lock-out notice was being for warded along with the letter and the consequential curtailment of certain normal facility, the letter went on to say

(3.) ON 16th February, 1991, respondent 1 to 10 made an application (IDA) No. 119 of 1991 before the Labour Court at Thane under the provisions of section 33-C (2) of the Act. By the said application respondent 1 to 10 claimed full wages for the month of January, 1991, which, according to them, was due under the applicable settlement. The main ground on which the claim was pressed was that each of the aforesaid respondents alleged that he was ready and willing to work on all the working days of the factory, but that he had been prevented by the petitioner from carrying out his normal work, and, consequently, it was claimed that each of the respondents 1 to 10 had become entitled to his wages for the month of January, 1991, which had been wrongfully denied to him. The petitioner contested the application, and took up the contention that, on account of the continuing lock-out from 5th January, 1991, there was no question of the concerned workmen having earned any wages during the relevant period. They also contended that the application made by the workman was not for enforcing an existing right but for the grant of a new right which was wholly impermissible under the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the Labour Court under section 33-C (2) of the Act. In addition, the petitioner also pleaded its case on merits, with which we are really not concerned in the present petition.