Bombay High Court
Lakshminarayanapuram Subramanian ... vs A.P. Lakhanikar Or His Successor & ... on 28 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)BOMCR164, (2000)1BOMLR273, [2000(85)FLR56], 2000(2)MHLJ103
Author: R.J. Kochar
Bench: R.J. Kochar
ORDER R.J. Kochar, J.
1. The petitioner being an employee of second respondent filed an application before the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act praying for computation of money due to him from the Company for the period from 1-12-1986 to 31-1-1987 and Rs. 1,400/-towards leave travel assistance.
2. The petitioner had filed the said application saying that with effect from 29-11-1986 the respondent company had instructed him not to enter the office and the work place and had refused to give work to him at their district office at Swadeshi Mills Estate, though he was ready and willing to work as per lawful and reasonable instructions of the opponent. According to him having fulfilled the expressed or implied terms of the company, he was entitled to receive from the company full wages and benefits for the period from 1-12-1986. The petitioner therefore had prayed for direction from the Labour Court against the company for payment and recovery of the said amount.
3. The respondent company contested the application by tiling its written statement. It raised a substantial objection about the maintainability of the very application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as according to the respondents it had effected a valid and legal lockout from 15-12-1986 onwards, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any wages for the period of the legal and valid lockout. It was specifically contended that the attendance of the employees was dispensed with from 29-11-1986 to 14-12-1986 for which period the company had paid wages to the employees and the same was admitted by the petitioner himself. It is also the case of the company that a sum of Rs. 1,400/- on account of leave travel allowance was sanctioned and was sent to him by a telegraphic money order on or about 9th December, 1987, and therefore, it was not necessary for the Labour Court to pass any order in that respect.
4. The Labour Court framed the following issue :---
"Whether the claim of wages can be determined and computed by this Court in this proceeding when it is the contention of the company that they had effected valid and legal lockout during the said period ?"
and answered the same in the, negative.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgement and order of the Labour Court, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have gone through the entire proceedings. I have also carefully read the judgment given by the Labour Court. The company did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was asked not to enter the place of work from 29-11-1986 and it is the positive case of the company that for that period i.e. from 29-11-1986 to 14-12-1986 full wages have been paid to the petitioner. It is further contended by the company that it had effected legal and valid lockout from 15-12-1986, and therefore, no wages were payable for the period of legal and valid lockout. It is also not disputed that the question of legality of the lockout has been determined by the Labour Court under separate proceedings under section 24 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 in a proper reference filed by the General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay of which the petitioner was a member.
6. The said reference (U.L.P.) was decided on 7-7-1987 in favour of the company and it was held that the lock out effected by the company from 9.30 a.m. on 15-12-1986 was not an illegal lockout. According to the company, there was no lockout from 29-11-1986 to 14-12-1986 as for that notice period the employees were paid their full wages and the lock out commenced from 15-12-1986 which has been held to be not illegal. According to the company, the employees were not entitled to get any wages for the period during which the lockout commenced and continued lawfully. According to me, the Labour Court has accurately considered the legal position and has rightly held, following the judgments of the Supreme Court, that the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has no jurisdiction to decide the question whether the lockout commenced and continued by the company was either legal or justified. Such a dispute regarding legality and validity and justifiability of a lockout will be a subject matter of full-fledged adjudication under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it cannot be decided under section 33-C(2) of the Act which is more or less akin to executory jurisdiction. The said provision is made to enable a workman to claim his wages/benefits for determination as an existing right. In the present case, the petitioner had called upon the Labour Court to determine firstly the question whether the lockout was legal or valid and after holding the said lockout to be illegal and unjustified, direct the company to pay wages to him. The execution Court cannot go into all such issues which are to be determined under adjudication proceedings initiated by way of a reference under section 10(1) of the Act. The petitioner cannot adopt this short cut remedy of filing an application under section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question whether a lockout is legal or illegal or justified under section 33-C(2) of the Act. Since the legal position is absolutely clear and the Labour Court has referred to all the relevant authorities of the Supreme Court, it is not necessary for me to reproduce them and discuss the same herein.
7. It is also pertinent to note that the question whether the lockout was legal or illegal has also been determined by a competent Court under section 24 of the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P Act, 1971 recording a clear cut finding that the lockout was not illegal. Even that Court could not have decided whether the lockout was justified or not, and had not rightly decided the justifiability of the lockout. The appropriate remedy for the Union and the petitioner was to raise an industrial dispute under section 10(1) of the Act for determination of the issue that the lockout was not justified, and therefore, claim wages for the relevant period. The question of justifiability of a strike or lockout can always be gone into in the adjudication proceedings in the form of a reference under section 10(1) of the Act and not under any other provision of Act. Since the petitioner had no existing right to claim wages for the period of the lockout which is held not to be illegal he could not have filed the said application under section 33-C(2) of the Act. According to me the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the application.
8. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the said judgement and order of the Labour Court. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs. M.D. Kawade v. Mahindra Engineering
9. Parties to act on a copy of the order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar.
10. Petition dismissed.