VIRENDRA METAL INDUSTRIES Vs. K M DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order of the Industrial Court dated 6th April, 1987, made in Complaint (ULP) No. 808 of 1985, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE petitioner was carrying on the activity of manufacturing Aluminium and Brass watch straps in its factory. The activity of manufacturing Watch Straps was closed down with effect from 17th July, 1982 and by a notice displayed on 16th July, 1985, the Petitioner declared that its factory had been closed down with effect from 17th July, 1985, and the workers were advised to collect the closure compensation and other dues from a particular place any time after 17th July, 1985. The copies of the notice were also sent to several statutory authorities like Inspector of Factories, Commissioner of Labour, Regional Director E. S. I. C. , Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Inspector of Police, Jogeshwari, Bombay-60, and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Andheri Division. The Second respondent Union challenged the closure of the factory by its Complaint (ULP) No. 808 of 1985 under section 28 read with Items 1 (b), 5 and 6 of Schedule II and Items 1 (a), (b), (d), 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The case made out by the Second respondent in its complaint to the Industrial Court was that there was in fact no closure and that the closure was a mala fide device adopted by the petitioner to lock-out the workmen for a prolonged period in order to break their resistence so that the petitioner could successfully implement its design of mala fides on the workmen. Thus, it was alleged by the Union that it amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of the provisions under Items 1 (b), 5 and 6 Schedule II and Items 1 (a), (b), (d), 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court tried the complaint and raised the following issues and answered them as under :-I S S U E S : 1. Whether the complainant union proves that respondents threatened a lock-out or closure if the workers organised any Union? 2. Whether the complainant union further proves that the respondents refused to bargain collectively in good faith with it?

(3.) WHETHER the complainant union further proves that the respondents continued the lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act?