VAMEN MARUTY GHARAT Vs. M S APTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in the present petition is whether the refusal of the employer to allow the workmen to resume their work unless they sign the undertaking in writing to the effect that they were calling off the illegal strike and that they will discharge their duties properly and will not cause any damage to the property, amounts to a lock-out and whether such a lockout was justified.

(2.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioner-workmen in their representative capacity on behalf of themselves and other employees of the 3rd Respondent-Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The Company is engaged in the business of dyeing cloth. All the employees of the Company numbering about 400 had gone on strike from April 2, 1978 following the dismissal of one of their Co-employees on March 9, 1978 and suspension of another pending inquiry. The Company therefore filed an application before the Labour Court under Sections 77, 78, 79 and 80 and 88 read with Section 97 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the strike was illegal. By its order of May 3, 1978, the Labour Court declared the strike illegal; on May 5, 1978 the Company issued a public notice through a newspaper calling upon the workmen to resume their work by May 8, 1978 after giving an undertaking in the above terms. The Petitioners' Union by their letter of May 7, 1978 informed the Company that as required by law, the workmen were withdrawing the strike which was declared by the Labour Court as illegal and that the workmen would present themselves at the factory on May 8, 1978 in their usual shifts. The Union, however, also informed the Company that the workmen would not give any undertaking in writing as a condition to join the work. The Union further made it clear that the strike was withdrawn without prejudice to the workmen's right to have their grievances redressed and also without prejudice to their right to challenge the order of the Labour Court declaring the strike; illegal, by adopting such legal proceedings as the workmen may be advised to institute. On the next day, i.e. May 8, 1978 the Company refused to allow the workmen to join their duties unless they signed the following undertaking which was already prepared and kept ready :

(3.) On May 12, 1978 the Company terminated the Petitioners' services. The workmen therefore made a reference to the Labour Court on May 24, 1978 for declaration that the action of the Company in refusing to take them on work unless they give the undertaking amounted to an illegal lock-out. The Labour Court by its decision of September 8, 1978 held that the action of the Company amounted to illegal lock-out. The Company thereafter preferred an application before the Industrial Court for revision of the said order under Section 85 of the Act, and the Industrial Court in revision set aside the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the workmen's application by its order of April 30, 1979. It appears that thereafter the workmen approached Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition No. 7120 of 1979 which was dismissed in limine on April 3, 1980. Thereafter the present petition was filed by them in this Court. Since now it is settled law that a summary dismissal of the petition by the Supreme Court filed directly against the order of the Lower Court is not a bar to the entertainment by this Court of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, no objection is raised on behalf of the Company to the hearing of this petition on merits.