EASTERN MEDIKIT LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management has approached this court impugning the order dated 1.8.2012, Endst. Dated 7.8.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby dispute has been referred to Industrial Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, 'the Tribunal') under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') for adjudication and the order dated 1.8.2012, Endst. Dated 7.8.2012 (Annexure P-2) whereby in terms of power exercised under Section 10(3) of the Act, the Governor of Haryana was pleased to prohibit continuation of lock-out resorted to by the management.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Act, the appropriate government does not have any adjudicatory power to decide any dispute on merits. In the present case, the stand of the employees' union was that there is a lock-out, whereas the stand of the management was that there is an illegal strike, but still the government thought it appropriate to refer only as to whether the lock-out by the management is legal and justified. The question referred pre supposes that there is a lock-out declared by the management and its legality only has to be gone into by the Tribunal. During the course of proceedings before the authorities under the Act, the petitioner had placed on record the material, which established that in fact the management never declared a lock-out, rather, it were the workmen who had been resorting to stoppage of work by adopting various means. Once the stand taken by the management and the workmen before the authorities under the Act was different, namely, it is strike or the lock-out, the appropriate government could not assume jurisdiction of adjudication and refer the dispute partially.

(3.) It was further submitted that while making reference, the appropriate government had assumed certain facts, which is beyond its jurisdiction. In view of the language used in the question referred, the Tribunal cannot even go into the question as to whether the lock-out was result of an illegal strike as any strike has to be legal and justified. The government can refuse to refer a question to the Tribunal only if it finds that the grounds raised by the party concerned are so frivolous that it is not worth reference but the case in hand is not of that kind as it has been established by various communications addressed to the authorities during pendency of the proceedings that in fact the workmen had resorted to illegal means to put the management at loss. Though it is sought to be claimed that the management declared lock-out on 18.5.2012, but the fact that on that very day as per the settlement, wages were paid to the workmen, is not in dispute. If the management had declared lock-out on 18.5.2012, there was no question of declaring holidays from 26.5.2012 to 30.5.2012. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed upon The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and others, 1967 AIR(SC) 469; Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. The Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and another, 1979 AIR(SC) 1356; M/s Indian Tourism Development Corporation v. Delhi Administration and others, 1982 1 ILR(Del) 535; Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, 1994 5 SCC 572; M/s Modistone Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Punjab at Chandigarh and another, 1996 114 PunLR 496; Hal Employees Union v. Presiding Officer and another, 1996 4 SCC 223; Moolchand Kharati Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute v. Labour Commissioner and others, 1998 3 LLJ 1139 and Moolchand Kharati Ram Hospital K. Union v. Labour Commissioner and others, 2000 2 LLJ 1411.