Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

W.P. No.12702/2012 is preferred by the management- M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. assailing the order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-O and order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-P passed by respondent No.1 prohibiting the lockout.

2. W.P. No.28183/2013 is preferred by the Parle Workers Union assailing the order dated 10.04.2012 containing issue No.2 of the order of reference and seeking a direction to delete the impugned portion viz., strike by the workmen mentioned in the preamble of the Government Order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-A and replace it by the words "lockout" of the factory by the management.

a. Whether the management was justified in declaring lockout from 22.08.2011 as alleged by the trade union?

b. Whether the Parle Workers union was justified in demanding to take back the striking workers who were under suspension?

6. Respondent No.1-government has also passed another order dated 10.04.2012 under Section 10(3) of the ID Act assuming that the management has declared lockout and hence, prohibited, purported lockout. In the produced waste biscuits to the extent of 25%, the absenteeism rate was 33% and there was a total non-cooperation on shop floor.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Civil Court had restrained the workmen of the union from holding strike and the said order was modified by this Court on demonstrating of strike within a radius of 50 meters of the factory premises was prohibited. It is the contention of the petitioner that the workmen continued their stay in strike in the premises and the government though framed an opinion that there is a strike without even considering the nature of dispute mechanically states that it is a lockout. Learned counsel would contend that at no point of time, the petitioner-management had declared lockout. Learned counsel would bring to the notice of this Court during the pendency of this writ petition, the management filed an application under Section 25(O) (1) of the ID Act seeking permission for the closure of the factory, as it experienced

- 11 -

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-union would contend that the order of reference containing issue No.2 is erroneously stated as 'strike' and the industrial dispute is regarding 'lockout'.

10. The impugned order at Annexure-O refers to the fact that there was a strike and the orders before the Civil Court and this Court would clearly indicate that there was a strike in the factory premises from 22.08.2011 and the Government came to the conclusion that the management has declared lockout was contrary to the order passed by the Civil Court and this Court. The fact remains that the petitioner-management has closed the factory w.e.f. 09.09.2013 and assailing the said order, the respondent- union has preferred writ petition before this Court which is pending consideration. The State Government cannot mechanically refer the matter for dispute unless it forms an opinion as to whether there was a dispute, which requires to be referred for adjudication and having framed an opinion of strike, the reference of adjudication in declaring lockout is