Bombay High Court
The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. And ... vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha And Others on 30 June, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1987)ILLJ50BOM
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer is challenging the interim relief granted by the Industrial Court by order dated May, 26, 1982 passed below Exhibit U-2. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.
2. The Union of employees had served a strike notice on August 31, 1981 and in pursuance of the notice, the workmen at the Head Office commenced their sit-in-pen-down strike from September 15, 1981 on a day by day basis. On April 12, 1982, the management issued notice expressing its desire to restore normal working at Neville House and in order to do so, the Management decided to obtain an undertaking of good behavior from all the workers before permitting them to enter Neville House. The notice recites that on March 18, 1982 the striking workmen led by their leaders forced open one of the main entrance door and when the Security Staff tried to prevent them from taking the law into their own hands, the striking workers rushed to the Security Staff and assaulted them. The workmen also resorted to stone throwing and rioting and which had to be quelled with the help of police and S.R.P. personnel. The striking workmen also assaulted the Security people and prevented some employees from entering Neville House inspite of the Court direction. The notice recites that in these circumstances, it has become imperative that entry into the premises of Neville House be restricted only to authorised persons and to workmen who are genuinely interested in carrying out normal work in disciplined and peaceful manner.
3. The Union thereupon filed complaint (ULP) No. 34 of 1982 before the Industrial Court complaining of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule II and Items 4 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Union also made an application for granting interim relief restraining the employer from demanding a written undertaking from the workmen prior to entry into the office building. It was claimed before the Industrial Court that the sit-in-pen down strike is recognised as a mode of strike and the action of the employer in calling upon the workmen to give an undertaking amounts to refusing to continue to employ and thereby attracts the term of "lock out" in Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On behalf of the employees, it was conceded that there would be no objection to give undertaking that disturbance or indiscipline will not be created on the premises, but there was insistence that the workmen had right to enter the premises even if they had no intention to carry out the work. The Industrial Court accepted the claim of the Union and by the impugned order directed the employer to allow the workmen to enter the office building on giving an undertaking to the effect that the workmen should not indulge in violence. The order of the Industrial Court is under challenge.
4. Shri Srikrishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity as by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the action of the employer in not permitting the employee to enter the place of work when the workmen had not intention whatsoever to carry out their duties would amount to unfair labour practice. Shri Srikrishna submits that to hold that the conduct of the employer in the present case amounts to "lock out" is entirely erroneous and unsustainable. I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel. It is necessary to bear in mind the background which led the employer to demand an undertaking from the workmen. The workmen employed at Neville House and who are white collared workmen indulged in serious indiscipline and rioting after giving strike notice. The workmen had no intention or desire to carry out their normal duties but insisted on their right to enter the office premises and make use of the premises during the working hours. The Industrial Court has found that the workmen had such a right. It is not possible to accede to the conclusion of the Industrial Court. Even assuming that the workmen have not indulged in violence and indiscipline, still the employer has right to tell the workmen not to enter the premises in case the workmen had made it clear that they had no intention to carry out their duties. The work premises are not to be used by the workmen as a matter of right even though the workmen had not intention to carry out the work. In my judgment, the interim order passed by the Industrial Court is entirely misconceived and is required to be set aside.
5. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 stated that his client has taken away the papers from him and has no instructions in the matter. I have considered the order passed by the Industrial Court on merits and I find that it cannot stand.
6. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute and the impugned order dated May 26, 1982, copy of which is annexed as Ex. "W" is set aside and the application for interim relief filed before the Industrial Court and marked as Ex. U-2 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no other as to costs.