WP/6667/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6667 OF 2010 M/s.Poona Radiators & Oil Coolers ... Petitioner V/s. Pune Labour Union ... Respondent Mr.D.J. Bhanage for Petitioner Mr.L.R. Mohite for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, II Labour Court, Pune on 15.1.2010. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the order directing them to pay wages to their workmen for three months from 19.4.2003 to 10.7.2003 is erroneous. According to the petitioners, the workmen had not worked during this period despite notices sent to them calling upon them to resume duty. The petitioners contended that this amounted to an illegal strike and, therefore, the workmen were not entitled to wages. Admittedly, the petitioners wanted an undertaking to be furnished by the workers as a pre-condition for resuming duty. The undertaking required the workman to state that he was ready to work and that after he enters the factory premises, he would perform the allotted work honestly, would not sit idle and would maintain discipline. WP/6667/2010 : 2 : 2. Reliance is placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vaman Maruti Gharat & Ors. vs. M.S. Apte, 1988 (57) FLR 554 : (1989) I LLJ 134 Bom. He submits that this Court has held that the insistence by the employer on an undertaking which is not onerous should not be questioned by the Industrial Court. 3. In my view, the Industrial Court has for cogent reasons refused to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In the present case, admittedly there was nothing on record to show that the workers had declared a strike. There was also no material or evidence to show that the employer had obtained a declaration that the strike, if any, was illegal. Therefore, the question of giving any undertaking to the respondent did not arise. In their statement of claim in the Complaint, the Union had contended in its complaint that when the workmen reported for duty on 19.4.2003 in the first shift they were not permitted to enter the factory premises. A notice was put up at about 9.30 am alleging that the workmen had indulged in a sit-in strike. Later, on the same day, another notice was put up on the notice on the notice board directing the workers to furnish an undertaking as a pre-condition to enter the factory. 4. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has not committed any error by directing payment of wages for the aforesaid period. The evidence on record has been assessed by the Industrial Court and it has found that it was the petitioners who had kept the workmen out of employment for three months, for no reason. The undertaking insisted upon by the Petitioners is not innocuous as the learned advocate for the Petitioners suggests. There is no reason to ask a workman for such WP/6667/2010 : 3 : an undertaking when there is no evidence on record that the workmen did not desire to work or that they had stopped work. 5. The Writ Petition is therefore rejected.