(1.) This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-2-2001 rendered by the learned single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition no. 6051 of 1995, filed against the order dated 23-9-1992 issued by respondent no. l under section 10 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the I. D. Act"). By that order, continuance of the lock out at the factory of the appellant's company, which had started on 14-10-1991, had been prohibited.
(2.) The background facts, in nutshell, are as follows. The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It has a factory at Ambarnath which was engaged in the business of manufacturing of E. O. T. Cranes. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the unions of the workmen employed in the factory of the appellant-company. Respondent no. 3 claims to be a recognised union. The dispute between the two unions is not relevant for deciding this letters patent appeal, since the issue that was raised before the learned single Judge whether reference under section 10 (1) of the I. D. Act made on the basis of the charter of demands submitted by respondent no. 2 - Union, is bad and consequently liable to be quashed and set aside, has not been pressed in the instant Appeal. It appears that various settlements were signed with respondent no. 3-Union and the last such settlement was signed on 24-12-1986 which expired in June, 1989. A fresh Charter of demands was submitted by respondent no. 3 on 27-7-1989 whereas respondent no. 2 submitted their Charter of demands on 21 -11 -1991. The appellant could not meet with the demands as, according to them, they were incurring heavy losses and at the material time there were accumulated losses of Rs. 11. 05 crores. Various meetings took place between the representatives of the appellant and the office bearers of the recognised union, wherein they were explained by the appellant the circumstances under which their undertaking was not in a position to meet their demands. It was pointed out, according to the appellant, that unless the recognised union was agreeable for imposition of ceiling on D. A. allowance as also reduction in manpower, the factory would not be economically viable. Since the union and their workmen did not concede the appellant's demand for imposition of ceiling on D. A. and reduction in manpower, the appellant issued a notice of lock-out dated 28-9-1991. It may be noticed that even prior to issuance of the lockout notice, a notice of change under section 9-A of the I. D. Act for fixing ceiling on D. A. was given by the appellant on 27-11-1990. In pursuance of the lock out notice, the lock out was started on 14-10-1991. As mentioned earlier, respondent no. 2 - Union also submitted its Charter of demands on 21 -11 -1991 claiming that majority of the workmen of the factory had become its members and that the appellant should negotiate and sign settlement with respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 issued two orders on 23-9-1992, the first being an order under section 10 (1) (d) of the I. D. Act. By that order, the Charter of demands raised by respondent no. 2 was referred for adjudication of the industrial Dispute at Thane. In so far as the second order is concerned, it was issued under section 10 (3) of the I. D. Act prohibiting the continuation of lock out at the said factory which was impugned in the writ petition. The reference made by respondent no. l under section 10 (l) (d) on 23-9-1992 and the reference dated 12-2-1992 made in pursuance of the Notice of change under section 9-A of the I. D. Act for the purposes to impose ceiling on D. A. , are still pending. The impugned order under section 10 (3) of the I. D. Act, however, was passed prohibiting continuation of lock out at the said factory.
(3.) The learned Single Judge in paragraph 4 of the impugned order formulated the grounds of objections raised in the petition which read thus :