THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.4387 OF 2000 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner- Employer and Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union. A Reference, under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was made by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1376, Labour Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department, dated 06.08.1998 for adjudication of the following dispute:- “Whether Agarwal Industries Employees Union (Regd.No.A.617) is justified in demanding full wages for the lockout period i.e., from 15.01.1998 to 01.02.1998 from the Management of Agarwal Industries Limited, 01-08-576, 576, 579 and 590, Industrial Area, Azamabad, Hyderabad?” “If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?” The Industrial Tribunal, after a detailed examination of the evidence both oral and documentary, observed that the Union had failed to substantiate the lockout declared by the Management as illegal; the lockout declared by the Management was not illegal; the said lockout was declared due to the unrest created by the Members of the Union; even as per the Union, the Union Members did not go on strike; they had created unrest in the premises of the respondent-Factory; there was evidence to show that due to the acts of the members of the Union, production at the Factory had come to a grinding halt and the Management had declared lockout; the Management ought to have given some more time by waiting for some more days without declaring lockout from 15.01.1998. The Tribunal was of the view that, though the lockout declared by the Management was not illegal, the Members of the Union were entitled to half wages during the lockout period i.e., from 15.01.1998 to 01.02.1998. The question referred to the Tribunal was answered by upholding that the Union was not justified in demanding full wages for the lockout period from 15.01.1998 to 01.02.1998, but the members were entitled to half wages during the said period. Before this Court, Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, having recorded a finding that the lockout was not illegal, the Tribunal was not justified in directing payment of 50% wages during the lockout period to the Members of the Union; and, it is only in cases where the lockout is declared to be illegal would the Tribunal be justified in paying wages for the lockout period, either in full or half. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent- Union, would submit that the observations of the Tribunal that the Management ought to have waited for some more time before declaring lockout was the reason for it granting 50 % of the wages; subsequent to the above order passed by the Tribunal, a settlement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Union whereby some amount was directed to be paid to the members of the respondent-Union and, in view of the subsequent events, it was wholly unnecessary for this Court to adjudicate upon the validity of the award. No copy of any such settlement has been placed before this Court. The jurisdiction which the Tribunal can exercise, for awarding wages for the lockout period, is only if it records a finding that the lockout declared by the employer is illegal. It is only in such circumstances would the Tribunal be justified in directing payment of wages, even if it be in part, for the lockout period. Having held that the action of the petitioner herein in declaring the lockout was not illegal, the Tribunal erred in directing payment of 50% of the wages and in fastening the employer with such liability, which they ought not to have been mulcted with. Misplaced sympathy or excessive benevolence on the workmen concerned is wholly unjustified. Once the lockout is held to be valid, there is no justification in still insisting on the employer to pay 50% of the wages for the lockout period. The award of the Tribunal, in directing the petitioner herein to pay 50% wages during the lockout period, suffers from a patent error of law apparent on the face of the record and is, accordingly, quashed. It is, however, made clear that, if any subsequent settlement has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Union or its Members, the amount, if any, paid to the workmen in terms of the said settlement shall not be recovered from them. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 5th August 2010 RRB