GENERAL LABOUR UNION (RED FLAG) Vs. KANAK INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner Union has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 19.4.2004 declining to hold that the workmen are entitled to full wages for the strike period and continuity of service.

(2.) The respondent no.1 is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing ready-made garments. The respondent nos.3 & 4 were admittedly not parties before the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent no.2 was not a necessary party. The dispute in the present petition pertains to the entitlement, if any, of the workmen to full wages for the strike period from 17.10.1984 to 2.3.1989. There has been a dispute between the parties in respect of a lock out and a strike. However, we are concerned only with the dispute pertaining to the strike period from 17.10.1984 to 2.3.1989.

(3.) On 6.5.1983, due to rivalry between the petitioner-Union and the recognised Union, there was general indiscipline and the respondent gave a lock out notice. This lock out notice was eventually upheld as legal. On 23.8.1984, the respondent lifted the lock out and directed the workmen to report for work at the premises of the respondent at Taloja, after signing a settlement with the recognised Union. Between the period 1.9.1984 and 15.9.1984, the workmen reported for work at Taloja. The petitioner Union, however, filed a complaint for unfair labour practices for shifting the premises from Mumbai to Taloja in Navi Mumbai. On 1.10.1984 the Industrial Court rejected the application for interim relief. On the same date, the petitioner gave a notice of strike for the reasons recorded in the annexure to the said notice. The statement of reasons suggests that the petitioner gave the strike notice mainly relating to the transfer of the industry from Mumbai to Taloja. This was the subject-matter of the complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. There was also another dispute pertaining to certain wages. In the meanwhile, the complaint against the shifting was itself rejected by the Industrial Court. The petitioner challenged that order on 5.3.1985 in Writ Petition No.345 of 1985 which was rejected by this Court. On 11.3.1985 the respondent requested the workmen to report for duty. On 5.4.1985 they wrote another letter to the workmen to resume work and indicated that in case they do not want to do so, to collect their dues. Out of 800 employees then working, almost 600 took their legal dues from the respondent and expressed that they did not wish to work. On 1.4.1987 the respondent returned the premises to the landlord.