wages were denied to the workers from the date of alleged lockout i.e. 8.10.98 till 1.3.99 in these Letters Patent Appeals, mainly, the following ... points arise :-
(1) Whether the lockout was justifiable or not can be gone into by the Industrial Court under item 9 of Schedule
dismissal. retrenchment or termination of service of a workman, but concerns a lockout. It is only where the dispute relates to either discharge, dismissal, retrenchment ... raise, rest of the industrial disputes including disputes pertaining to illegal lockout, lay-off and lay-off compensation have to be filtered through the process
favour of the workmen of the 2nd respondent-Company that the lockout declared by the Company from January 13. 1964, was Illegal, and even ... question of relief which the workmen claimed it held that the lockout was justified and the workmen would not be entitled to any reliei
reference was on the question as to whether a lockout declared by the management of the First Respondent with effect from 26th ... 12th August 1994 that the question as to the legality of the lockout had already been decided on 5th May 1983 in a judgment
Union No. 17 during strike w.e.f. 14-4-1993 or lockout if desired, except for the legitimate lawful purpose of carrying out their ... respondents did not give any notice as required before effecting the lockout from 1.30 pm on 14th April, 1993. I, therefore, say that the lockout
dated 22nd September, 1997, the respondent Company declared its intention to effect lockout with effect from 8th October, 1997. Even before the lockout notice ... Complaint (ULP) No. 766 of 1997 in the Industrial Court, Mumbai, apprehending lockout and/or closure of the Company's factory at Sewree
continue the manufacturing operation and hence, it issued a notice of lockout on 3-10-1996, under section ... declared its intention to commence the lockout from the beginning of the 1st shift on 20-6-1996, for the reasons stated in the annexure
July 4, 1987. The first respondent - employer declared a lockout on October 8, 1986. In the course of conciliation, meetings were held on October ... conciliation proceedings under Section 18(3) of the said Act, the lockout was lifted in two phases namely on November 28, 1987 for the maintenance
plea that he had gone an illegal strike; that the lockout was unjust, improper and illegal, being declared during the pendency of proceeding before ... petitioner was concerned, and that even after the declaration of the said lockout, the petitioner through his trade union, informed the employers that
said notice and refuted the allegations made in the notice of lockout against the workmen -Union. On or about 20/4/992 the Union filed ... Schedule IV of the Act and challenged the lockout notice. While the said complaint was pending before the Industrial Court, the company issued a notice
