Falcon Tyres Ltd., Mysore, Rep. By Its Company Secretary vs Falcon Tyres Employees'' Union, Rep.

B. Veerappa, J.—M/s. Falcon Tyres Ltd. - the Management is before this Court for writ of Certiorari to quash the award dated 25.8.2008 made in Ref. No.161/1999 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore at Annexure-F allowing the reference in part and clarifying that the wages paid to 611 workmen as appended to the order of reference for the period from 9.11.1996 to 29.11.1996 shall be deemed to be the wages for the said period and the advance paid by the Management stands automatically adjusted.

It is the case of the petitioner-Management that it is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and the respondent-Union is a Trade Union constituted by the workmen of the petitioner-Management. The respondent-Union demanded bonus at the rate of 20% for the year 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 and in addition, exgratia payment of 20% of the wages. The Petitioner discussed with the respondent-Union and explained to the respondent-Union that on account of its financial difficulties, it is not possible to concede to their demands and hence requested to scale down its demand as it was not only illegal but unjust The respondent-Union was not prepared to scale down the demand. To bring pressure on it to agree to the unreasonable demands, the respondent-Union and its members resorted to various modes of agitation disrupting the normal working of the establishment. In fact, it filed a suit before the Civil Court, Mysore seeking an order of injunction to prevent the respondent-Union and its members from disrupting its normal work and an order of temporary injunction was granted on 27.9.1996 made in O.S.No.2 1 5/1996. In spite of the injunction order, the respondent-Union and its members continued with their unlawful activities.

Thereafter on 7.11.1996, a settlement was arrived between the parties. According to the settlement, both the Management and the Union agreed to refer the matter of payment of wages to the former group of workmen for the said period for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and to the effect that efforts shall be made jointly to expedite the adjudication proceedings so as to receive the award at the earliest and preferably within three months. Accordingly, a reference was made.

On the basis of the reference made under the provisions of Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same was taken up for adjudication by the Labour Court at Mysore.

The Labour Court after considering the entire material both oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the Management has not proved that the workmen were on illegal strike from 9.11.1996 to 20.11.1996 and hence they are not entitled for the wages for the said period. Accordingly, the reference was allowed in part clarifying that the wages paid to 611 workmen as appended to the order of reference for the period from 9.11.1996 to 29.11.1996 shall be deemed to be the wages for the said period and the advance paid by the Management stands automatically adjusted. Hence the present writ petition is filed by the Management.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the list.

Sri Somashekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Labour Court without analysing the evidence placed before it held that the workmen are entitled to wages for the period of strike only on the ground that the identity of the workmen, who indulged in unlawful acts, their names and the number of workers are not established and hence, the view taken by the Labour Court is contrary to the material evidence on record especially Ex.M.2 and admittedly all the workmen have resorted to illegal strike. Therefore, the workmen are not entitled to any wages. He further contended that the second witness of the Management has clearly stated that the job of loading and that the Union and its workmen in pursuance of their non-cooperation, stopped the entry of trucks bringing raw materials to the factory and prevented the contract workers from unloading the raw materials which amounts to strike. Therefore, it would be impossible to give effect to the principle of no work no wages'' as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court time and again. Therefore, he sought to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court by allowing the writ petition.

Per contra, Sri K.B. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel for the respondent-Union sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Labour Court by pointing out that M.W.-1 has stated to the effect that the raw materials were not supplied to the workmen for production by the Management and therefore, there was no question of illegal strike as alleged by the Management and it is a mistake committed on the part of the Management in not supplying raw materials to the workers and it cannot shift the burden on the Union. When the Management was not in a position to feed the raw material as required for manufacturing in the establishment, the manufacturing process came to a grinding halt. Hence, the workers reported themselves in the shift hours and marked their attendance to show their presence in the factory but remained idle in the factory without engaging in manufacturing process and no fault can be found on the part of the workmen, who were inside the factory to do the work. He also contended that as per the evidence of M.Ws.1, 2 and 3, the Management was not able to identify the workmen, their names and number of workmen, who were on illegal strike. In the absence of the same, the Labour Court was justified in passing the impugned award. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the list, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and the respondent-Union is a Trade Union constituted by workmen of the petitioner-Company. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the mutual agreement between the parties, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for reference to decide the dispute under the provisions of Section 10(1 )(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the Management on one hand that the Union has unnecessarily indulged in illegal strike thereby causing damage to the Management and therefore, the workers are not entitled to any wages, but on the other hand, it is the specific case of the Union that no raw materials were supplied and all the workers inside the factory were idle and it is a mistake on the part of the Management and hence, it cannot blame them.

The Labour Court considering the evidence of W.W.1 and M.Ws.1 to 3 and material documents Exs.M.I to 7, recorded a specific finding that the Management has failed to prove that the Union was on illegal strike for the period from 9.11.1996 to 29.11.1996 and that the Management was not in a position to feed the raw materials required for manufacture in the Management. Consequently, the manufacturing process came to a grinding halt. It also held that the workmen reported themselves in the shift hours and marked their attendance to show their presence in the factory, but they remained idle without engaging in manufacturing process since no raw materials were available to go into production. The action of the Union in restoring (sic resorting) to stoppage of work of un-loading the raw materials amounts to illegal and unjustified strike which resulted in stoppage of work in other subsequent sections for want of materials.

The evidence of M.W.1 in the context of Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that, if it is so, the Management ought to have obtained such orders under the said provision. Further it is stated that the date of production, the place of obstruction, the number of workers, who obstructed and the identity of the workmen is not stated by M.W.-1 and the number of vehicles carrying the load as well as the registration number of the vehicles is also not stated by him. He has also stated that the workmen merely attended the duty for the sake of attendance. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that even the workmen, who had gone inside the factory after punching attendance card were coming to the gate obstructing the work of contract workers, who were un-loading the materials from the lorries. Though the admission is in favour of the Management still it is vague in the sense that the names of the workmen, number of workmen, the identity of the workmen and the place of their obstruction are all silent. M.W.1 also states that the entire production activity came to a grinding halt with effect from 9.11.1996 and despite the order of injunction, the office bearers of the Union and the workmen did not allow the materials to be unloaded.

Further the Labour Court has held that considering the evidence of M.Ws.1 to 3. the Labour Court found that the identity of the workmen, their names and the number of workmen are not established and in the absence of the same, it has been held that the Management has paid the advance amount equivalent to the wages for the period 9.11.1996 to 29.11.1996. A decade has been over now after such payment Therefore, the reference was allowed and the same is in accordance with lav.''

It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for both parties across the Bar that for the last one year, the factory is not at all working. Taking into consideration the subsequent development and also the fact that the Management has paid advance amount equivalent to the wages to the workmen and a decade has been over now before passing of the impugned award dated 25th August, 2008 and since the Management has failed to establish that the Union-respondent was on illegal strike from 9.11.1996 to 25.11.1996, the Management is not entitled to any relief. In these circumstances, the petitioner has not made any ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.