Justify lockouts, says HC

It can no longer justify its stand by merely fulfilling the legal provisions under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act MRTU amp; PULP Act.

Justice F I Rebello of the Bombay High Court has ruled that workers are entitled to wages during the lockout if they can prove the lockout itself was not called for.

The order was delivered on a petition filed by the Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh, which alleged unfair labour practices by Guest Keen Williams Limited. The company had declared a lockout in Feburary 1998 after issuing a notice in January 1998.

Another group of 19 employees alsomoved the Industrial Court against the company under the MRTU amp; PULP Act. The court, however, rejected the petition, maintaining that the 8220;lockout was legal8221; and the justifiability of the lockout could not examined in a complaint of unfair labour practices. However, the workers appealed in the high court, maintaining that the act permits the Industrial Court to probe the circumstances under which the lockout was declared. They maintained that even though the company may have followed the legal procedures, the lockout itself may not have been called for or by subsequent passage of time, it may become totally unfair to the workers. The company8217;s counsel argued that unless there is a prior agreement with the workers, the latter are not entitled to wages during the lockout period.

The counsel cited past rulings Mazdoor Congress vs S A Patil, Billion Plastics vs Dyes and Chemicals Workers Union, and Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs Solid Containers Ltd, which underscore the Industrial Court8217;s inability togo beyond the scope of the lockout8217;s legality.

Upholding the workers8217; contention, Justice Rebello observed that the company was not justified in this policy decision, after outlining the circumstances before the lockout was declared.

To begin with, the management had suspended work from January 19, much before the lockout took effect from February 5.

Also, he observed, no agreements had been reached by the warring parties despite the workers submission of two charters of demands since 1989.There were no recent instances of violence in the company, he said, pointing out that in their reply to the lockout notice the workers had in fact assured peace in the factory. This had been reiterated in the courts too.

Moreover, the company had reached an agreement with the union with regard to a particular section of the workforce. Therefore, Justice Rebello ruled, there was no justification for the lockout at this stage and certainly not for denial of workers8217; monthly wages. The judge directed the company to paywages until the final disposal of the petitions.

Following the ruling, the company has filed an appeal in the high court, arguing that 8220;the single judge has erred in interfering with the Industrial Court8217;s well-reasoned order8221;. Moreover, the company claims, the judge has not appreciated the lockout notice, which clearly mentions the looming threat of violence in the establishment. 8220;No prudent employer could be expected to wait for actual bloodshed before imposing the lockout,8221; the appeal states.

Colin Gonsalves and J P Cama appeared for the petitioners while K K Singhvi and C U Singh represented the management.