MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION Vs. SOLID CONTAINERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (I) Is the lock-out declared by first respondent company illegal or deemed to be illegal; (ii) Is the first respondent-company justified in insisting upon its workers to execute an undertaking of good behaviour and diligent work by way of condition precedent for lifting the lock-out? and (iii) does the Appellant, which is not a recognised union, have a locus to file a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971? are the questions which are posed for our consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) THE first respondent is a limited company engaged in manufacture of containers and allied products. The present management has taken over the company some time in the year 1983. The list which has led to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal commenced some-time in 1985. On 24th of October, 1985 the respondent company filed an application before the Government under section 25 (o) of the Industrial Disputes Act for closure. By an order passed by the Government on the 18th of December, 1985 that application came to be rejected. This was followed by certain notices being issued by the first respondent alleging violence on the part of the workers. On 26th of December, 1985 the respondent issued a notice alleging inter alia that various notices had been issued advising the workmen to maintain discipline and not to indulge in unlawful activities. The workmen have, however, not paid any heed and have continued committing acts of indiscipline and have been intensifying the same day to day. The workers are become more hostile and aggressive and have started humiliating and hurling threats openly on the personnel of the company of dire consequences without any provocation. They are also threatening to damage the companys properties. The notice has further gone on to state that on the date of the notice, workmen gheraoed Shri R. K. Barot, the Maintenance Manager and Satyapal Goel, the stores keeper. They declared that they would not lift the gherao till assurances were given to them as to when they would be paid their wages. The two officers were humiliated, insulted, intimidated and absued in most vulgar and filthy language. The officers were threatened that none of the officers of the company would be allowed to enter the factory premises. If any officer dared to come inside the factory he would have to face dire consequences. By the violent and hostile activities workers have created tension and panic in the minds of officers and all officers are afraid to come inside the factory premises. The workmen are keeping the situation on the factory premises surcharged with tension.

(3.) A further notice dated the 28th of December, 1985 was issued by the respondent-company alleging that the workmen have taken over the reign of the entire factory. There is no law and order inside the factory premises. They are not obeying the directions of the security personnel. Yet, a further notice dated the 31st of December, 1985 is issued alleging violent activities on the part of the workmen on the 25th and 26th December, 1985. It was further alleged that the situation in and around the factory was very tense and that the workers have determined to assault the officers whosoever came in the factory. On 31st December, 1985, some of the officers could enter into the factory premises only in the presence of police. Apprehending grave danger to life and property the Chairman of the company rushed to the factory in the presence of the police. The Chairman tried to pacify the workmen explaining them the financial crisis being faced by the company and the paucity of funds. The explanations and persuations of the Chairman, however, have gone in-vain. A further notice dated the 2nd January, 1986 containing similar allegations was also issued.