- (1.) The appellant company, on grant of leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, has brought in challenge the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 Union under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and quashed the decision of the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Thane. By the said decision, the First Labour Court, Thane, took the view on an application moved by the appellant company that respondent No. 1 Union had gone on an illegal strike from 30th March, 1983 pursuant to the strike notice dated 14th March, 1983. In the impugned judgment, learned single Judge of the High Court took the contrary view and held that the appellant had failed to establish that the strike in question was illegal.
(2.) In order to appreciate the grievances of the appellant against the decision of the High Court, it will be necessary to have a glance at the background facts. Introductory facts: The appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of chemicals at Thane in the State of Maharashtra since more than 38 years. Respondent No. 1 is a workers union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Respondent No. 1 union had submitted a charter of demand to the appellant on 1st April, 1981. During negotiations a settlement was arrived at before the Concillation Officer between the parties on 8th March, 1982. The said settlement was valid up to December 1984. The settlement, inter alia, amongst others, covered the following two demands; (i) Demand No. 14 - Privilege Leave; (ii) Demand No. 26 - Medical Check-up; It is the case of the appellant company that during the subsistence of the aforesaid settlement, Respondent No. 1 union sent a letter of demand to the Factory Manager of the appellant company on 14th March, 1983. As per the said letter, various demands were raised and it was submitted by respondent No. 1 union that it would go on strike on the expiry of 14 days from the date of service of the notice. According to respondent No. 1, the said notice was to be considered as notice for going on strike. The Factory Manager of the appellant company sent a reply to the notice of respondent No. 1 on 23rd March, 1983. Respondent No. 1 union, having gone on strike from 30th March, 1983, sent a replication on 2nd April, 1983.
(3.) The appellant company which is governed by the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Maharashtra Act') filed an application under Section 25 of the Maharashtra Act before the Labour Court, Thane, seeking a declaration that respondent No. 1 union had gone on an illegal strike. In the said application, the appellant's case was that the said strike was illegal under Section 24(1)(i)(a) and (i) of the Maharashtra Act. The said application was moved as per the provisions of Section 24(1) read with Section 25(1) of the Maharashtra Act.;