MODI STONE EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. MODI STONE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th February, 1998 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing complaint (ULP) No. 857 of 1997 filed by petitioner union under Section 28 of the m. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. This Act will hereinafter be referred to for short as the said Act.

(2.) THE material facts leading to petitioner's complaint must be set out briefly as follows. The respondent is a company engaged in manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps. By notice dated 22nd September, 1997, the respondent company declared its intention to effect lockout with effect from 8th October, 1997. Even before the lockout notice was issued the recognised petitioner union had filed Complaint (ULP)No. 766 of 1997 in the Industrial Court, Mumbai, apprehending lockout and/or closure of the company's factory at Sewree. On 28th August, 1997, the Industrial court by an ad interim order restrained the respondent company from declaring lockout, closure or suspensi on of operation or termination of services of the workmen without following due process of law. The company discontinued production from 22nd September, 1997 dispensing attendance, of the workmen by issuing lockout notice dated 22nd September, 1997. The petitioner union therefore filed complaint (ULP) No. 857 of 1997 under Item 6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV and Items 1 and 6 of Schedule II of the said Act complaining of unfair labour practices on the part of the respondent company. The said complaint was p resented on 25th September, 1997, i. e. before the lockout was given effect to.

(3.) IN the earlier complaint (ULP) No. 766 of 1997 as well as present complaint (ULP) No. 857 of 1997, the case of the petitioner union was that the impugned lockout notice is only a pretence and the real intention of the respondent company was to close down the undertaking without following the mandatory provisions under Sections 25-N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was alleged by the Union that in the lockout notice dated 22nd September, 1997, it is stated by the Company that this is not lockour in the legal sense. Yet the lockout notice was given resulting in cessation of work and keeping all the employees numbering about 1600 out of employment. If there is not lockout, the illegal refusal of work in countravention of the binding settlement/award amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The action of the company declaring lockout is contrary to the award dated 21 st January, 1995 particularly clause 16 (b)thereof. If also amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 10 of Schedule IV inasmuch the workers were forced to remain idle, out of employment by force. The reasons for the lockout mentioned in the lockout notice are also totally false. The respondent is using this as pretext for closing the operation of the company. It was alleged that the company is acting with malafide intention to undermine the collective bargaining of the union and the workers' unity It was therefore prayed that a declaration be granted that the company has engaged in unfair labour practices and direction is sought against the company to cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labour practices.