THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 15001 of 2009 THURSDAY THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 Between: ICIT Soft Centre Pvt. Ltd. Hyderbad .. Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P., rep. By its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and four others .. Respondents Oral order: In this writ petition, the petitioner, namely M/s. ICIT Software Centre Pvt. Ltd., has questioned the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1099, dated 16.07.2009 under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, prohibiting continuance of lockout of the petitioner-company, as being illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company submitted that even though respondent No.5-workers union raised three issues as to the justification or otherwise of, namely (1) Termination of services of 65 works; (2) lockout of petitioner-company and; (3) implementation of charter of demands, before the Conciliation Officer, the conciliation proceedings before him having failed, the conciliation Officer ought to have submitted failure report, but he submitted report, which is contravention of the provisions of Section 12 of the I.D. Act, and based on the same, the Additional Commissioner of Labour, referred two disputes, namely (1) Termination of services of 65 workers and; (2) implementation of charter of demands, and since the dispute relating to justification or otherwise of the lockout of the petitioner-company was not referred to the statutory authority for adjudication, and the said issue having not been referred to the statutory authority for adjudication, respondent No.1-Government could not have issued the impugned G.O. invoking the provisions of Section 10(3) of the I.D. Act, prohibiting the continuance of lockout of the petitioner-company which is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for respondent No.5-workers union submitted that since lockout of the petitioner-company had arisen out of an in connection with the issues, namely the strike which arose because of termination of services of 65 workers and non- implementation of charter of demands, which are referred to the statutory authority for adjudication, and that being in existence as on the date of reference of issues to the statutory authority for adjudication, respondent No.1-Government, having regard to the language employed in Section 10(3) of the I.D. Act, have issued the impugned G.O. prohibiting continuance of lockout, and no interference is called therewith. He further submitted that apart from the provisions of Section 10(3) of the I.D. Act, which prohibit continuance of lockout or strike during the time the disputes referred to a Board/Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal/Central Tribunal, for adjudication are pending, the provisions of Section 23 of the I.D. Act, also prohibit continuance of strike and lockout, irrespective of the fact whether the strike or lockout, as the case may be, is justified or not. He submitted that if the dispute relating to justification or otherwise of the lockout of the petitioner-company is not referred to the statutory authority for adjudication, it is not the petitioner-company, but the members of respondent No.5-workers union, who will greatly suffer, and the petitioner-company having not shown any prejudice that would be cause to them if the issue relating to justification or otherwise of the lockout is referred to the statutory authority for adjudication, no interference is called for with the orders issued by respondent No.1- Government in the impugned G.O. prohibiting continuance of lockout of the petitioner-company. He further submitted that the petitioner- company has imposed the lockout as members of respondent No.5- workers union have gone on strike in connection with the issues that were referred to the statutory authority for adjudication, and in such circumstances, respondent No.1-Government, was well within its powers to issue the impugned G.O. under Section 10(3) of the I.D. Act, prohibiting continuance of lockout of the petitioner-company. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that under Section 10(3) of the I.D. Act, respondent No.1-Government is empowered to pass orders prohibiting continuance of strike or lockout as the case may be, which was in existence as on the date when the disputes arising therefrom were referred to Board/Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal/Central Tribunal, for adjudication. He further submitted that since the lockout of the petitioner-company had arisen in connection with the disputes that were referred to the statutory authority and was in existence as on the date of reference of the disputes to the statutory authority for adjudication, respondent No.1- Government have issued the impugned G.O., prohibiting continuance of lockout of the petitioner-company, and no exception can be taken thereto. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-company, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5-workers union. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner-company and the learned counsel for respondent No.5-workers union vehemently argued on the merits of the case, but ultimately they agreed for setting aside the impugned G.O. prohibiting continuance of lockout of the petitioner-company, without expressing any opinion on the justification or otherwise of its issuance, and disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the impugned G.O., the impugned G.O., issued by respondent No.1- Government, prohibiting continuance of lockout of the petitioner- company is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to call the representatives of both the petitioner-company and respondent No.5- workers union to his Office on 17.08.2009 and conduct conciliation/hold talks with them for referring the issue relating to justification or otherwise of the lockout of the petitioner-company also to the statutory authority for adjudication, and complete the conciliation proceedings as far as practicable on the very same day, and submit his report to respondent No.1-Government. Based on the conciliation report to be submitted by respondent No.3, respondent No.1- Government shall take a decision as to whether the issue in question has to be referred to the statutory authority or not, and thereafter, respondent No.1-Government, shall pass consequential orders under Section 10(3) of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 6th August, 2009 Note: Issue CC today. (B/o) KSR