LexGENERAL LABOUR UNION (RED FLAG) BOMBAY versus B. V. CHAVAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
64
"···
ll.
GENERAL LABOUR UNION (RED FLAG) BOMBAY
.,
Y.
B. V. CHAVAN AND ORS.
Novemter 16, 1984 ·
co·. A: DESAI, v. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND v. KOALID, 11.1
lnduslrlal Disputes Act,
1947-'Lock-out'-Dejinilion of-Explained.
Closure-Meaning of-To find out whether it ls lock-out or closure court must find
out intention of employer at the time when it resorti to lock-out or closure.
The appellant trade union filed two complaints against the employees.
The comi>Iaints were that the employers were guilty of imposing and continuing
a lock-Out and had thus committed unfair labour practice. The employers
contended that they. bad finally and inevocably closed the industrial under-
taking and were not guilty of any unfair labour practice. The Indwtrial
Court dismissed the complaints. The union
9S appeals were dismissed by the
High Court. Hence these appeals by special Jeave.
Disposing of thC appe3.Is,
\
'
HELD : Lock-out has been defined in Sec. 2(L) of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947 to mean the closing of a place of business, or the suspension of
work or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ aay number or
persons employed by him......, In lock-0ut the employer refuses to continue to
employ the workmen employed by him even though the business activity was not
closed down nor intended to be closed down. .TP.c essence of lock-out is the
refusal of the employer to continue to emplo:t-Workmen. There is no intention
to close the industrial activity. Even it ·the suspension of work· is ordered it
would constitute lock-out. On the other hand closure implies closing of industrial
activity as a consequence of which workmen arc.rendered jobless.[67 G-H; 68 A]
r'
The true te$t to find out whether the employer has imposed a tock-0ut or
has closed the industrial establishment, is th1t when it is claimed that the
employer has resorted to closure of industrial activity, the Industrial Court in
order to determine whether the employer is guilty of unfair labour practice must
ascertain on evidence produced before it whether the closure was a device or
pretence to terminate services of workmen or whether it is bonafide and for
reasons beyond the control of the employer. The duration ot the closure may
be a significant fact to determine the intention and bonafides of the employer at
the time of the closure but is not decisive of the matter. When it is claimed
that the employer is not guilty of imposing a lock-out but has closed the
indus\rial activity, tbe Industrial CQ~rt bef9re wbi~b !he ac\i•n of !be employer
·1
LABOUR UNION v. B. v. CHA VAN (Desai. J.)
65
is que~tioned must keeping in view all the relevant circumstances at the time of
closure decide and determine whether the closure was a bonafide one or was a
de,·ice or a pretence to determine the services of the \vorkmen. Answer to this
question would permit the Industrial Court to come to the conclusion one way
or the other. [68 F·H; 69A]
CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6092 & 6093
of 1983
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 4th February, 1983 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 173
of 1983.
M.K. Ramamurthi and Urmi/a Sirur for the Appellant.
Gob ind Das, P.H. Parekh and lndu M a/hotra for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
DESAI, J. General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay filed two
complaints, one against M/s. Delta Wires Pvt. Ltd. and second
against M/s. Delta Spokes Manufacturing Company, two sisiers
concerns ('employers' for short) under Sec. 28 read with Items l (a),
l(b), 2, 4(a), 4(f) and 6 of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recog·
nition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971 ('Act' for short). Broadly stated the complaints were that
the employers were guilty of imposing and continuing a lock-out and
had thus committed unfair labour practice. The employers contended
that they had finally and irrevocably closed the industrial undertaking
and were not guilty of any unfair labour practice. The complaints
were filed in the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay.
The learned Judge framed 'an issue whether the employers had
committed an unfair labour practice by imposing and continuing a
lock·out as provided in Item 6 of Schedule II of the Act.
After hearing the parties, the learned Judge answered the issue
in negative and dismissed the complaints.
The appellant-Union filed two special cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.