SUDARSHAN STEEL MANUFACTURING CO Vs. MUMBAI LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the learned industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 1660 of 1991 by which the learned Industrial Court has allowed the complaint in part and directed that the workmen should be allowed and permitted to resume their usual duty with effect from January 1, 2002 with continuity of service. It was further directed that the petitioner Company shall make payment of back wages at the rate of 25% o the workmen for a period from September 5, 1991 till end of december, 2001. The few facts of the present case are as under:

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that on april 15, 1987 the petitioner Union gave a notice of strike with effect from May 2, 1987. The said strike continued for almost a period of four years. Though the said strike was not declared illegal but on August 12, 1991 the said strike is supposed to have been withdrawn. It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of the fact that the strike was withdrawn, no 2 worker resumed the duty and reported on job though the jobs were offered to them. On the other hand it is the case of the Union that though the strike was withdrawn, the respondent union's member workers were not permitted to resume their job and their duties. Consequently, the petitioner management had illegally declared lock-out in the said factory premises. On the aforesaid allegations of the parties, the aforesaid complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner company has declared illegal lock- out and has not allowed the members of the respondent union to resume duty. Before the learned trial Court the parties were examined in detail.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in fact by virtue of the conduct on the part of the members of the respondent Union not to report on duty after sending several reminders ultimately a charge sheet was issued to various workers on June 9, 1992 and the workers were chargesheeted. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said charge-sheet, domestic enquiry was conducted by the petitioner-management and ultimately by various orders issued to various workers the petitioner management terminated the services of the said workers. It is the case of the respondent Union members on the other hand that no such charge-sheet was served on them, no such enquiry was conducted and there was no legal or valid order of dismissal. The learned Industrial Court in the judgment impugned before me has while considering this aspect of the matter has held that he is not inclined to go into the said issue at all. In paragraph 24 of the said judgment, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has held as under: