ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS Vs. V K DATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Association of Engineering Workers (for short, 'the Union') filed the writ petition before this Court praying therein that direction be issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation Officer) to initiate conciliation proceedings with regard to the demand raised by the Union for lifting the illegal lock-out and for payment during the period of lock-out and in case of failure, direction to the State Government to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication. In the writ petition, the Commissioner of Labour, deputy Commissioner of Labour, Assistant commissioner of Labour, State of Maharashtra and Premier Automobiles Limited were impleaded as respondents 1 to 5 respectively. The writ petition came to be dismissed on January 6, 1997 by eight word order, "since ULP Act invoked, writ petition is rejected". Aggrieved thereby, the Union has preferred this appeal.

(2.) On June 5, 1996, the respondent No. 5 premier Automobiles Limited (for short, "the employer") declared lock-out. The Union raised the demand for lifting the lock-out on june 7, 1996. On June 19, 1996 the Union filed a Reference before the Labour Court, Mumbai in terms of Section 25 (2) of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "mrtu and PULP Act"). The lock-out was lifted by the employer on November 25, 1996. On the demand raised by the Union and intervention letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of labour dated June 7, 1996, the Assistant commissioner of Labour communicated its decision of not proposing to intervene in the dispute vide his letter dated October 18, 1996 to the Union. Three reasons were set out for not intervening in the said dispute; (one) that the legality of the lock-out effected by the employer with effect from June 5, 1996 is a subject matter pending before 6th Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No. 16/1996 under MRTU and PULP act; (two) that the workers who are excluded from the notice lock-out resorted to strike with effect from June 5, 1996 and (three) that there was bar under Section 59 of the MRTU and pulp Act in proceeding under Industrial disputes Act, 1947 in view of the pending reference. Upon receipt of the communication dated October 18, 1996, as indicated above, the writ petition was filed by the Union before this court on December 10, 1996.

(3.) Mr. N. M. Ganguli, the learned counsel for the Union strenuously urged that unjustifiability of lock-out was not (and could not be) the subject matter of Reference under section 25 (2) of the MRTU and PULP Act and, therefore, bar under Section 59 was not attracted. He also submitted that even otherwise bar contemplated under Section 59 is with regard to the complaint under Section 28 and not for the Reference application under section 25 (2) of the MRTU and PULP Act.