=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.159 NO.159 NO.159 OF 2004 OF 2004 OF 2004 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.1996 OF 2003 NO.1996 OF 2003 NO.1996 OF 2003 M/s Stardent Laboratory Pvt.Ltd. ...Appellants v/s Shramik Sahakar Sangh and anr. ...Respondents Mr Naushad Engineer with Mr Pankaj Raybad i/b M/s DSK Legal for Appellants. None for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 20TH JANUARY 2009 20TH JANUARY 2009 20TH JANUARY 2009 =2= P.C. :- 1. By this appeal, the original petitioners challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.1996 of 2003. That petition was filed by the appellants challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 22nd November 2002 in Complaint (ULP) No.169 of 1992. That complaint, it appears, was filed by the Union alleging that the respondents have committed unfair labour practice. The workmen went on strike and because of strike, lock out was declared. But on 2nd January 1992 workers offered to work, but the employer - petitioner did not permit them without they giving an undertaking. It appears that many of the employees gave undertaking and three of the employees did not give it. Therefore, they were not permitted to work till lifting of the lock out i.e. 4th February 1993. The only question to be decided by the Court was whether the employer was justified in refusing to permit three workers to work because they did not agree to sign the undertaking. The Industrial Court directed the employer to pay the workmen for the period from 2nd January 1992 till the date of lifting of the lock out i.e. 4th February 1993. =3= 2. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that the only question which was argued before the learned Single Judge was whether the employer was justified in asking the workers to sign the undertaking before permitting them to join the duties. The learned Single Judge has considered the terms of the undertaking which have been reproduced in the order and the learned Single Judge has held that considering the terms of the undertaking, it cannot be said that the employees unreasonably declined to sign the same. It appears that no other point was urged before the learned Single Judge. In this view of the matter therefore, we perused the record including the form of the undertaking, we find that the terms in which the undertaking was sought were quite unreasonable and therefore the workers were justified in declining to sign the undertaking. In any case, the only question involved is payment of wages to three workers for the aforesaid period which cannot be said to be a working period and the amount is also not substantial. In our opinion, no interference at our hands is called for. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice of motion No.168 of 2008 is disposed off. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. =4= . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( A.A. SAYED J.)