MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION Vs. ESTRELLA BATTERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocates for the parties and perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the award dated 6th March, 1998 passed by the Industrial Court in Reference No. 97 of 1988 on three counts; firstly, that the Industrial Court erred in holding that the reference was barred under section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'), secondly, the Industrial Court erred in holding that the lock-out was not illegal and was not unjustified and thirdly, that the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the contention of the petitioners that in any case, the lock out ceased to be legal or justified subsequent to the order dated 27th January, 1984 issued by the Government under section 10 (3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as I. D. Act ).

(3.) THE petitioner is a Registered Trade Union whereas the respondent No. 2 is the employer of the members of the said union. Sometimes in 1981, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 executed a settlement dated 14-8-1981 in terms of the provisions of the I. D. Act relating to the bonus payable to the workmen under the provisions of the Bonus Act for the period of 3 years from 1981 to 1983. There was also a charter of demands submitted by the petitioner for revision of wages which was referred to the adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal under Reference No. 192 of 1979 which was to be heard alongwith the earlier reference made pursuant to the notice of change under section 9-A of the I. D. Act being reference No. 148 of 1976. Meanwhile, in or about 1983, another trade union by name Kamgar Utkarsh Sabha came to be registered under the trade Unions Act claiming membership of some of the workmen employed in the undertaking of respondent No. 1. It appears that there was some movement at the instance of the second trade union for bonus at the rate different from what was agreed under the settlement dated 14-8-1981 consequent to which there was no payment of bonus for the year 1983 prior to the expiry of the month of October, 1983, the dissatisfaction sought to have developed amongst the workmen which gave rise to service of notice dated 3rd November, 1983 by respondent No. 1 suspending the operation and further issuance of notice under section 24 (2) (a) of the said act for the purpose of lock-out to be effective from 17th November, 1983. There was protest against the said decision of the management by issuance of letter dated 10th November, 1983 by the petitioner followed by the complaint under section 28 read with Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act being Complaint No. 801/83. The petitioner therein sought for declaration of the lockout commenced from 3rd november, 1983 to be illegal and for further direction for payment of full wages from the date of the lockout. The said complaint came to be dismissed for default on 13th October, 1993. It appears that there was one more complaint filed by Kamgar Utkarsh Sabha being Complaint No. 788/83. During the pendency of the said two complaints, by an order dated 27th January, 1984, the Government referred the industrial dispute between the Management of respondent No. 1 and their workmen regarding the payment of bonus for the year 1983 for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal and further by the order of the same date issued directions in terms of section 10 (3) of the I. D. Act prohibiting continuation of lock-out in connection with the dispute referred for adjudication. Lockout, however, continued. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 1 filed Writ petition No. 612 of 1984 as well as Writ Petition No. 1844 of 1984 in relation to the said directions under section 10 (3) of the I. D. Act, but without any favourable result to the respondent No. 1. It appears that subsequently, the respondent No. 1 and its General Manager were prosecuted for continuation of lock-out in contravention of the said direction and the respondent No. 1 and the General Manager were convicted by the order dated 17th September, 1992 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. Contending that there was no payment of wages to the workmen since October, 1983 the petitioner sought to approach the Government as a result of which and on account of the failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to adjudication of dispute being reference No. 7 of 1988 wherein the impugned award came to be passed.