GREAT NET INDUSTRY Vs. A M PRACHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from the Judgment and Order dated 31/7/1995 rendered by the Industrial Court at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 95 of 1985. The said complaint was filed by the present respondent no.1 on his behalf and on behalf of other employees challenging the notice of lock-out dated 17/12/1980. The complaint was filed under Section 28(1) read Item Nos.1 and 6 of Schedule II and Item Nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The Industrial Court, at the first instance, by the impugned judgment gave a declaration that the lock-out effected on 28/12/1980 by the present petitioners as per the notice dated 17/12/1980 was illegal and consequently it directed the petitioners to lift the lock-out within 48 hours from 31/7/1995. By the subsequent order dated 14/8/1995 the court noted that the order dated 31/7/1995 was stayed till 14/8/1995 and, therefore, stay was lifted and further 48 hours time was granted to lift the lock-out upto 4 p.m. of 16/8/1995 and report compliance.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and petitioner no.2 is one of its partner. Petitioner No.1 was at the relevant time engaged in the business of manufacturing of wire netting. Subsequently, the factory was closed and Court Receiver came to be appointed in Regular Civil Suit No. 834 of 1988. The Court Receiver has been impleaded as respondent No.1A. The other partner was Shri S.J. Ashar who died on 5/4/1994. Respondent Nos.1B, 1C, 1D and 1E are the LRs of Shri S.J. Ashar who was one of the partners of petitioner no.1 and who died on 5/4/1994. Respondent No.2 is not a necessary party and he stands deleted forthwith. Respondent No.1 is the original complainant. It is the case of the petitioners that on 26/11/1980 the Secretary of Engineering workers Union paid a visit to the petitioners' factory and the said meeting was attended by all the workmen. However, after the meeting was over they did not report for duty and resorted to an abrupt action of tool down strike. Inspite of persuasion and notices issued on 26/11/1980, 27/11/1980 and 19/11/1980 tool down strike was not withdrawn and workmen started indulging in the act of coercion like shouting of slogans, using abusive language against the partners and company officials and in front of the residences of the partners. It is alleged that on 8/10/1980 some workmen assaulted the watchman who was on duty and another watchman was dragged out and assaulted on the same day for which the police complaint was lodged. As the management was not successful in restoring normalicy solely on account of the alleged illegal activities of the workmen, the notice of lock-out was issued on 17/12/1980 and it was displayed on the notice board of the factory for the information of the workmen. Simultaneously, the notice for suspension of operations was also issued and the operations came to be suspended with immediate effect. The lock-out commenced on 28/12/1980. For the first time, the lock-out notice was challenged by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 95 of 1985 on 29/3/1985 i.e. almost after four years and four months.

(3.) It appears, in the said complaint an application at Exh.U-2 was filed under Section 30(2) of the Act for interim relief and on the same day the following ex parte injunction order was passed:- "Read affidavit. Heard Shri Raju. Ad-interim injunction is issued against the respondents restraining them from removing or transferring or selling plant and machinery until further orders. Issue show cause notice, returnable on 21/6/1985."