1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1090 OF 2005. Vilas S/o Apparao Kamble and others ... Petitioners. Versus The Chairman, Mr.Nazir Hakim M/s Veronica Laboratories Ltd. and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.V.Patil, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.V.Adwant, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are ex-employees of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 2 use to run a production unit called "Veronica Laboratories Ltd." in the MIDC area at Latur. The petitioners were workers employed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Industrial Unit. The Industrial Unit was taken over by the Sicom i.e. Respondent No.2 on 3l.10.2001 due to financial defaults committed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the possession of the Industrial Unit was taken over in the exercise of powers U/s 29 of S.F.C. Act, 1951. As a natural fall out action by the financial institution, the work came to stand still and factory unit was closed down. 3. The petitioners preferred Reference Application bearing Reference (ULP) No.1/2001 before the Labour Court, Latur, U/s 25(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,1971. They asserted that the lock out was illegal and, therefore, they were entitled to receive the pay for the period relevant to the work and as per the provisions of the said Act. The Reference Application was initially allowed by the Labour 3 Court as per order dated 22.7.2002. It appears that the matter was reheard by the Reference Court and thereafter on 12.8.2004, the Reference Application came to be dismissed while deciding the same finally. It was the case of the Respondent No.3 that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference Application inasmuch as the factory unit of the Company run by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was taken over under the special enactment i.e. S.F.C. Act,1951. The Labour Court held that there was no lock out declared by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Labour Court further held that the petitioners were hand in glove with the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in order to extract money from the Respondent No.3 for the period which was in respect of their non-working. 4. Considering the reason for the closure of the factory unit of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, it can not be said that there was a lock out within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act or the MRTU and PULP Act. The concept of lock out is altogether different and the compulsive taking 4 over by the financial company due to defaults committed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not be termed as "illegal lock-out". In case of illegal lock-out the Company and the Proprietors/Directors or partners as the case may be are guilty of illegal action to suspend the work of the factory/Industrial Unit with some oblique intention. The fact situation in the present case does not spell out any such oblique intention on part of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and it is only a closure of the unit due to the act of the Respondent No.3 on account of failure of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to make financial payments. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any illegality in the impugned judgment and order. No merit. Dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp109005