KANAK INDUSTRIES Vs. GENERAL LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal before the Court arises out of a judgment of a Learned Single Judge dated 22nd July 1997. A reference was made to adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was on the question as to whether a lockout declared by the management of the First Respondent with effect from 26th May 1983 was legal and justified. The Industrial Tribunal held by an award dated 12th August 1994 that the question as to the legality of the lockout had already been decided on 5th May 1983 in a judgment of the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. ("MRTU & PULP Act, 1971") The Tribunal held that once the issue as regards the legality of the lockout has been decided finally by a competent Court, the lockout having been held to be legal, the same issue could not be raised again in a reference under Section 10. The Tribunal thereupon considered the justifiability of the lockout and on reviewing the evidence on record held that the lockout was justified. In a petition filed by the Union under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Learned Single Judge held that a finding on the legality of the lockout in a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, was only for the purposes of proceedings under that Act and this will not preclude the Industrial Tribunal from entering into the legality of the lockout when a reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Learned Single Judge, therefore held that a remand of the proceedings was warranted before the Tribunal for a fresh consideration on merits of the question as to whether the lockout was legal. On the justifiability of the lockout, the Learned Single Judge held that the award of the Tribunal was not satisfactory and the reasons furnished by the Tribunal were vague. The award of the Tribunal has been quashed and set aside and an order of remand has been passed for reconsideration of the question of legality as well as of the justifiability of the lockout on merits.

(2.) The submission urged on behalf of the employer in appeal is that the judgment of the Learned Single Judge overlooks the provisions of Section 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The contention before the Court is that once a proceeding is instituted by the Union under the Act, on a complaint of unfair labour practices where the legality of the lockout was squarely placed in issue, then by virtue of the provisions of Section 59, no proceedings can be entertained by any authority in respect of that matter under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) In order to appreciate the submission, a reference to Section 59 would be in order. The provision is to the following effect: