Case Note & Summary
The Engineering Workers Association (petitioner) challenged an order of the Industrial Court at Thane which held that a lockout declared by Radium Creation Ltd. (respondent) was legal and directed refund of Rs.1.40 crores deposited by the employer pursuant to an interim order of the Supreme Court. The lockout was declared on 5 July 2014, effective from 20 July 2014. The union filed a complaint under Item 6 of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging an illegal lockout and seeking perpetual injunction. The Industrial Court declined interim relief, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, in a special leave petition, directed the employer to deposit wages for the lockout period, which was done. The lockout was lifted on 22 July 2015. At final hearing, the Industrial Court held the lockout legal and ordered refund of the deposited amount. The union argued that the Industrial Court should have examined not only the legality but also the justifiability of the lockout, relying on Statesman Limited vs. Their Workmen and Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs. Balkrishna Pen Pvt. Ltd. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that under Item 6 of Schedule II of the MRTU & PULP Act, the only question is whether the lockout is legal or illegal; justifiability is not a separate requirement. The court noted that the precedents relied upon were under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has different provisions. The court also observed that the Supreme Court's interim order did not mandate examination of justifiability. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the Industrial Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Lockout - Legality vs. Justifiability - Item 6 of Schedule II, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court held the lockout legal and directed refund of wages deposited by employer. The union challenged, arguing that justifiability must also be examined. The High Court held that under Item 6, only legality of lockout is relevant; justifiability is not a separate requirement. The court distinguished precedents on justifiability as applicable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, not under the MRTU & PULP Act. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was required to examine not only the legality but also the justifiability of the lockout under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the lockout was legal and that the deposited amount of Rs.1.40 crores be refunded to the employer.
Law Points
- Lockout legality under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Justifiability of lockout not required to be examined separately if lockout is legal
- Industrial Court's jurisdiction limited to legality under Item 6 Schedule II
