ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION STAFF UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking to quash the G.O.Rt. No. 2426, Labour Employment Nutrition & Technical Education (Lab. I) Department, dt. 11/12/1985, issued by the 4th respondent in exercise of the powers u/s. 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), for short, "the Act", prohibiting lockout. The case of the petitioners is that due to financial constraints and patronage by the State Government of the local units; the sale of finished products of the petitioner-Company, viz., energy meters became declined. As a result of it, it was unable to earn huge profits and yet it was paying fabulous salaries to the employees. But the employees are demanding for increasing the wages which the petitioner is unable to meet, yet the petitioner has agreed to increase a sum of Rs. 98.00 per month per worker, but the workers did not agree to the suggestion made by the petitioner. The workers have resorted to go slow in the work and they have also resorted to commit irregularities in the work and adopted an attitude of insubordination towards their superiors and they have also been unauthorisedly leaving the factory during working hours. As a result, the Works Manager of the petitioner-factory was constrained to suspend ten workers who resorted to unlawfully gherao the officers and disrupt the functioning of the factory. Therefore, by notice dt. 5/12/1985, the petitioner was constrained to declare lockout. It is also stated in the affidavit that Mr. Mane, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, transparently acting at the behest of the subversive and turbulent employees and their leaders, went to the extent of trespassing into the premises of Mr. Kabra, Production Manager, exposing him to grave risk of grave consequences and sought to impose his will then and there for pressuring Mr. Kabra to lift the lockout, without at the same time holding out any assurance of the safety and protection of the executives as well as the plant of the establishment which runs into four crores. When his dictates were not acceded to by the petitioner, this order came to be passed as a bolt from the blue. Therefore, the order is not valid order.

(2.) The State Government filed its counter. It is stated therein that the 2nd respondent/union made a charter of demands dt. 2/01/1985, and thereafter, the incharge Joint Commissioner was directed to take urgent action against the representations made to the Minister of Labour of the unfair practice which the petitioner has resorted to against the workmen. As a result of it, he fixed a joint meeting on 22/11/1985. The petitioner/management, though initially agreed to participate and in fact participated in the meeting, went on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and in the interregnum, terminated the services of eight workmen without holding any domestic enquiry and unauthorisedly declared the lockout with effect from 6/12/1985. As a result of it, the conciliation efforts of Mr. D. R. Mane, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour were reported to have failed. Thereafter, considering the report, the Government had issued G.O.Rt. No. 2425, dated : 11/12/1985, u/s. 10(1) of the Act, referring for adjudication the dismissal of the eight employees by the Labour Court. With a view to restore industrial peace and harmony, the impugned G.O. was issued, prohibiting the lockout. In the counter-affidavit it is also explained as to under what circumstances Mr. Mane, the Deputy Commissioner/Conciliation Officer had to meet Mr. Kabra, the Production Manager and other officers. Mr. Mane has made his sincere efforts to effect conciliation between the management and the workmen to restore industrial peace, despite the days happened to be holidays. The action taken by Mr. Mane is a bona fide action in the discharge of his official duties as a Conciliation Officer.

(3.) On behalf of the first respondent and also the 2nd respondent-employees Unions, respective counter-affidavits have been filed. The substance of their contention is that the petitioner has resorted to unfair labour practices and unlawfully dismissed eight of its workers when the charter of demands had not been conceded to. The management created a farce of disorderliness as an alibi for declaring the lockout. In fact, the first respondent-union has written a letter dated 8/12/1985, declaring its unequivocal assurance that no untowards incident would happen. Therefore, it is not a bona fide action on the part of the petitioner.