- (1.) THE petitioner is a partnership-firm, herein represented by its managing partner. It started an industry in 1959 under the style "cochin Metals and Alloys" and another industry in 1962 under the style "cochin Hollow Wares. " The former was engaged in non-ferrous sheet rolling, while the latter was manufacturing hollow wares, hospital wares, etc. The workers in these two Industries are represented by respondent 2, the Chemical and Engineering Workers' Union, Palluruthy. Disputes arose in 1967 between the management and the workers; and they were settled by an agreement dated 16 December 1967, which was to remain in force for one year. But in July 1968, respondent 2 again raised disputes on matters already settled; and in order to force the management to accept the fresh demands made by them, which according to the management were highly unreasonable and impossible of compliance, the workers led by respondent 2 started " go-slow " tactics, and began to indulge in violent demonstrations and other unlawful activities. The management instituted a domestic enquiry about the "go-slow " tactics. On 9 November 1968, the workers kept the enquiry officer and one of the partners of the petitioner in confinement by use of criminal force within the factory of the Cochin Metals and Alloys by a process of what is nowadays known as "gherao. " They were relieved from confinement by the intervention of the police, late in the evening.
(2.) ON 8 November 1968, respondent 2 had approached the District Labour Officer, Always, for intervention and settlement of the disputes. Accordingly, he issued notice to the parties, convening a conference of the management and the union on 20 November 1968. On 11 November 1968, the petitioner put up notices in both factories notifying retrenchment of all workers with effect from the said date, consequent on its decision to close down these establishments. The reason for the closure was stated to be high cost of raw materials, non-availability of scarce raw materials, trade recession, non-feasibility of running the business on economic grounds, and consequent difference of opinion among the partners regarding the continuation of the business. Notice in the prescribed form was also given to the District Labour Officer, who received it admittedly on 12 November 1963. Apparently on receiving information about the closure of factories, he issued telegraphic notice to the management advancing the date of the conference on 12 November 1968. On that date, the District Labour Officer received a telegram from the managing partner of the petitioner, stating that he was unable to attend the conference, as he was under " gherao " in his residence by the workers, The conference was adjourned to 13 November 1968, which was attended by both parties. The petitioner stated in very clear terms that it had closed down the factories and was not intending to reopen or work them any longer, and that there was, therefore, no scope for any conciliation proceedings. The matter was accordingly reported by the District Labour Officer to the Government as per Ex R. 1 dated 14 November 1968. He also wrote to the Government as per Ex. R. 2 of even data recommending a reference of the dispute to the industrial tribunal, Calicut, for adjudication. Exhibits R. 1 and R. 2 were forwarded to the Government by the Labour Commissioner, with his letter Ex. R. 3 dated 25 November 1968, which endorsed the recommendation of the District Labour Officer for reference, Accordingly, a reference was made by the Government under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to the above tribunal, by order Ex. p. 1 dated 30 November 1968. According to the petitioner, this reference is incompetent, as there was no industrial dispute in view of the closure of the industry. The matter is pending adjudication.
(3.) IN the meanwhile, the illegal and lawful activities of the workers represented by respondent 2 continued. They "gheraoed" the managing partner of the petitioner for one full day in his residence. It is alleged that himself and the members of his family were forcibly prevented from getting out of the house even for answering calls of nature, that the children were not allowed to go to the schools, and that the police intervened and removed the workers only late in the day. It is also alleged that, thereafter, the workers continuously and without interruption started a sit-down strike, coupled with violent demonstrations and abusive slogans in front of the houses of all the partners of the petitioner-firm and its shop at Broad way, Ernakulam. The petitioner filed Original Suit No. 673 of 1963 in the Munsif's Court, Ernakulam, to restrain the workers by an injunction from preventing the ingress and egress of the partners of the petitioner and the members of their families to and from their houses. Relief was granted by that Court. It is further alleged in she affidavit of the petitioner that the partners sought police protection for their person and property, that there was no response from the authorities, in spite of repeated communications addressed to high police officers, that the petitioner filed Original Petition No. 6266 of 1968 in this Court for directions, and that it was disposed of on 10 January 1969 in the light of the assurance given by the Public Prosecutor that police protection would be continued to be given to the petitioner, if and when necessary. The workers are said to be still indulging in their criminal activities; and a criminal complaint was also filed in the local Magistrate's Court as Calendar Case No. 2406 of 1868 in respect of the wrongful restraint and other criminal acts committed by them. However, on 7 January 1969, the Government issued an order Ex. P. 2 in exercise of the powers under Section 10 (3) of the Act; prohibiting the continuance of lockout in the two industries of the petitioner. Exhibit P. 2 reads as follows: Whereas the Government of Kerala have by their order Rt. No. 986 of 1968 dated 30 November 1968 of the Labour and Social Welfare (H) Department issued, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), referred the industrial dispute between the management represented by the managing partner, the Cochin Hollow Wares and the Cochin Metals and Alloys, P. B. No. 131, Ernakulam-1, and the workers of the said concern to the industrial tribunal, Kozhikode, for adjudication ; And whereas the lookout in the concern in connexion with the said dispute which was in existence on the date of reference is continuing; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (3) of Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Kerala hereby prohibit the continuance of lookout in the said concern in connexion with the said dispute. This original petition has been filed to quash the above order, to strike down Section 10 (3) of the Act as unconstitutional and to restrain the respondent, the State of Kerala, from taking any steps pursuant to Ex. P. 2 or implementing it in any manner.;