MAZDOOR CONGRESS Vs. N L BHALCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Petition by the Mazdoor Congress, which is a Trade Union registered under the trade Unions Act, 1926, and by two other workmen of the 2nd Respondent company viz. Acme manufacturing Company Limited, seeking to challenge the Award dated August 31, 1984 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in a reference made by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said reference was made for adjudication of the dispute set out in the Schedule to the order of reference, which Schedule reads as under:

(2.) THE 2nd Respondent Company employed about 500 workmen. It was engaged in the business of manufacture of automobiles spare parts and accessories such as Valves, Push Rods, etc. An incident occurred in the morning of April 3, 1977 in which the Chairman of the Company Shri j. V. Patel and its Chief Executive Shri Ramanathan were assaulted by certain workmen. Initially, when the Chairman and the Chief Executive were in the chambers of Personnel Manager Shri gujarati, the workers came there and wanted to raise the issue regarding the suspension of a workman name Kate. The Chairman suggested that the discussion, if any, should be held during the lunch recess or after the working hours and not during the working hours. This suggestion was not liked by the workmen, who were infuriated. They waited for the Chairman and the Chief executive, who were taking a round in the Factory. The workmen then assaulted the Chairman shri Patel and the Chief Executive Shri Ramanathan, both of whom suffered some injuries. On april 3, 1977 itself a notice was displayed by the Company temporarily discontinuing the operations of the Factory and unilaterally declared a lock-out on April 4, 1977. The notice graphically sets out the incident which occurred at about 09. 15 A. M. on April 3, 1977 in which there was a physical assault on the Chairman and the Chief Executive, who had suffered injuries requiring medical attention. An F. I. R. was also lodged with the Antop Hill Police Station against the two workmen viz. , Kalambe and Raut.

(3.) ON April 3, 1977 itself the first petitioner Union wrote to the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Company demanding withdrawal of the illegal lock-out. This was followed by another Notice dated April 8, 1977 issued by the Union to the Company. The Union alleged that the Company was indulging in unfair labour practices and, therefore, should unconditionally withdraw the illegal lock-out declared by it on April 4, 1977 and to pay to all the workmen their full back wages for the period of the lock- out. On April 14, 1977 the Company made an application purporting to be under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act praying for permission of the State Government for closure of the factory with immediate effect and also for the waiver of the time-limit of 10 days. On 22nd April, 1977 the Union filed a complaint, being complaint (ULP) No. 87 of 1977, before the Industrial Court, Bombay praying that the lock-out declared by the Company was illegal and for a direction that the Company be ordered to lift the same forthwith. On 2nd Mav 1977. the comnany under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes act stating that they had closed down their Wadala stating that they had closed down their wadala Unit with effect from April 4, 1977. On May 4, 1977 the Company gave notice under section 24 (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 (for short, the "said 1971 Act") of the lock-out to be effected from May 19, 1977. On May 4, 1977 itself the Company gave another notice to the State Government under section 25-O of the Industrial disputes Act and served notices on the workmen inddually stating, inter alia, that their services would stand terminated with effect from August 3, 1977 or with effect from such date as would depend upon the order that may be passed by the State government on their application dated April 14, 1977 under Section 25-O of the Industrial disputes Act.