DEEPAK K JOSHI Vs. BOMBAY GENERAL KAMDAR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dated september 6, 1982 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, declaring that the petitioner is engaged in unfair labour practice falling under Items l (a1 (b)and 6 of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1973. The Industrial Court also directed the petitioner to desist from engaging in unfair labour practice and further directed to lift the lock out and to start the press with immediate effect. The petitioner was also directed to pay full back wages to the workmen who were in employment on the date of closure, that is, December 16,1981 till their reinstatement. The facts giving rise to passing of this order are as follows.

(2.) THE petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Deepak Printers from a press situated at Prabhadevi Industrial Estate, Bombay. The petitioner had employed about 14 workmen and their conditions of service were governed by the settlement dated May 16, 1979 reached between the petitioner and General Kamgar Sabha, a trade union. The workmen enrolled themselves as members of respondent No. 1 Union and that fact was communicated to the petitioner on August 10,1981. Respondent No. 1 submitted its charter of demands claiming bonus for the year 1980-81 and that demand was pending conciliation. Respondent No. 1 submitted a fresh charter of demand on October 5, 1981 and also gave a notice of termination of the earlier settlement On December 12, 1981 the Union informed the petitioner that in order to crush the union the petitioner has started harassing the workmen and has given threats that they would be dismissed from the employment if they continue to become members of respondent No. 1 Union-The petitioner on December 24, 198! served notice on the workmen, inter alia stating that the workmen have resorted to all sorts of agitation and are not giving full production and therefore it is not possible to fulfil the commitments to the clients The notice further recites that the petitioner had decided to close down the business once and for all with effect from the close of business hours on December 24, 1981. The workmen were informed to collect their legal dues from the office of the Advocate of the petitioner. The Union realising that the petitioner had declared a lock-out under the guise of the notice claiming that the press is closed, filed complaint (U. L. P.)No. 761 of 1981 before the Industrial Court, Bombay, claiming that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practice under Items 1,2 and 6 of schedule II of the Act. The gravamen of the charge was that the petitioner with a view to compel the workmen from leaving respondent No I Union has issued the notice. The Union also claimed that the closure effected by the petitioner is really a lock-out and the petitioner has diverted the work and the orders received from the customers to M/s. Laxmi Arts Printers, which is a concern set up by the petitioner in the name of his wife. The claim of the petitioner that the workmen were resorting to agitations was denied. The petitioner fi!ed reply claiming that the claim of the Union is not correct and he had taken decision to close f he business for want of orders from the customers and due to in disciplined behaviour of the workmen.

(3.) BEFORE the Industrial Court, the petitioner entered the witness box end a workman was also examined by the trade union. On consideration of the evidence, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner that he had closed the business was not correct and that the petitioner has really dene it to declare a lock-out. The claims that the machine of the printing press was sold was not accepted. The Industrial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had no desire to close the business but the notice of closure, which is really in the nature of a lock-out, was served on the workmen with a view to bring pressure on the workmen to leave the respondent No. 1 Union. On the strength of this finding, the industrial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice and therefore directed the petitioner to cease from continuing this practice and also granted consequential reliefs. The order of the Industrial Court is under challenge.