wp1416.92 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1416 OF 1992 Shri Prabhakar s/o Nanasaheb Rawake Age major, Occ. Nil, R/o. Goverdhan Ghat, Vazirabad, Nanded ...Petitioner Versus Nanded Zilla Mudran Kamgar Union Through its Vice President C/o. Trade Union Centre, Vazirabad Nanded, District Nanded ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.V. Chandole, advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.B. Kolpe h/f Mr. S.K. Shelke, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 29TH JULY, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 The present respondent had filed a complaint bearing ULP No. 640 of 1984 before the Industrial Court Aurangabad under Item 1 and 4 of Schedule II and Item No. 10 of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and .U.L.P. Act 1971. It is the case of the respondent that on 29.10.1984, the complainant Union served a charter of demand on the present petitioner and requested the present petitioner to negotiate the demand. The present petitioner did not consider the said charter of demand and tore the same. The wp1416.92 -2- petitioner also gave threats to the employees about dismissal from service. The present respondent-workers therefore, went on strike on 10.11.1984. The present petitioner also illegally declared lock out on 23.11.1984. The respondent, as such, claimed commission of unfair labour practice on behalf of the petitioner. The present respondent filed complaint about lock out with allied reliefs. The present petitioner resisted the said complaint and contended that the workers have illegally stopped working and because of the acts of commission and omissions on the part of the workers, the petitioner is required to declare the closure and had issued public notice on 23.11.1984. 2 The Industrial court allowed the complaint and directed the present petitioner to pay all employees those were in employment on the muster as on 10.11.1984 the salary/wages for the period from 1.11.1984 to 31.1.1985. The petitioner assailed the said judgment. 3 Shri Chandole, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its correct perspectives. There is nothing on record to show that after 23.11.1984 the petitioner has continued to transact the business of getting the paper printing through other printing press but only on assumption the Industrial Court has come to the said conclusion. Even the evidence led by the respondents does not inspire confidence, wp1416.92 -3- in as much as in the evidence it is nowhere stated that the charter of demand was submitted. Even the witness Pravin has not stated that the charter of demand has been submitted. All these anomalies have not been considered by the Tribunal. 4 Shri Kolpe, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and stated that it is because of illegal acts of the petitioner, the workers had to resort to strike. The proper procedure was followed. The lock out has been illegally declared. All these aspects have been properly considered by the Tribunal. The evidence has also been properly considered. 5 With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment and the evidence on record. No doubt, the workers had resorted to strike from 10.11.1984. It is also true that the petitioner could not carry on his business after 23.11.1984 i.e. since the date of closure. The facts and circumstances on record show that it became impossible for the petitioner to carry on the said work as he did not receive any assistance from the workers. When the closure was declared on 23.11.1984, then the workers would not be entitled for the salary/wages upto 31.1.1985. The Industrial Court has committed error in this regard. The workers would be entitled for the wages/salary from 1.11.1984 to 23.11.1984 i.e. the date of declaration of closure. wp1416.92 -4- Even the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that business of the petitioner is closed. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the Industrial Court except the period for which the salary/wages is to be awarded. 6 Taking into account the above aspects, I hold that the workers would be entitled for salary/wages from 1.11.1984 to 23.11.1984. As per the record there were 14 workers. The petitioner has deposited an amount of ` 15,000/- when the petition was admitted, as per the directions of this Court. The respondent has also withdrawn that amount. As such without entering into the mathematical calculations about the exact amount of wages to which the workers would be entitled to, I hold that the amount paid i.e. ` 15,000/- is sufficient. 7 In the result, Rule is made absolute in the above terms holding that the respondent is entitled for ` 15,000/-. No costs. *****