- (1.) The Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Trade Union and the Petitioner No. 2 is its Secretary. The Respondent No. 3 (Audiovisual Motion Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.) is a Company registered under the Companies Act and its business pertains to Still-film processing, printing, enlarging and selling photographic goods.
(2.) The Petitioners have challenged the Award dated 13.2.2004 passed in Case No. VIII-42/00 by the Learned Industrial Tribunal (Fourth Court), West Bengal, whereby and whereunder it was held that the lock out declared by the Company on 14.7.1995 was justified and that the workmen were not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
(3.) According to the Petitioners, out of the 4 Directors, 3 resigned in 1993 and one Mr. Ashok Pal and his wife became Directors. Subsequently, their son also joined the Company as a Director. The Petitioners have stated that thereafter the Company became the "family business" of Mr. Ashok Pal who started creating "pressures" upon the members of the Petitioner No. 1 and began curtailing benefits which were being enjoyed by the workers since long such as, stopping the production incentive bonus, bonus etc. They also stopped attending to "common works" which could have been done easily by the Laboratory and instead, got them done from outside. They also shifted the fixed assets of the Company like Air-conditioners etc. and stopped the maintenance of Generators, Water Pump, Water Line and other machinery. The Petitioners have further alleged that some of the machinery were shifted to the house of the Directors with an intention to close down the Company. The Petitioners raised objection vide Annexure-P/1 against such "illegal activities" of the Company. According to these Petitioners, the relationship between the employers and the employees was very cordial till March, 1993. The employees tried their best to settle some long pending issues like payment of bonus etc. but the Company was reluctant to settle the same and did not even discuss the Charter of Demands submitted by the Union. It is the further case of the Petitioners that when the Management started "creating pressure" upon the employees both "mentally" as well as "financially", then the Union lodged a General Diary on 13.7.1995 with the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station requesting that their interests be protected. They also submitted a Representation vide Annexure-P/2 on 5.5.1995 before the Company for settlement of their demands, such as, non-payment of bonus for the year 1994, non-payment of salary for April, 1995 and other issues but the Company did nothing and suddenly, on 14.7.1995, declared lock out on false allegations. The Union protested to the lock out and thereafter the matter was referred to the Office of the Labour Commissioner and finally to the Industrial Tribunal (Fourth Court) to decide as to i) Whether the Management was justified in declaring the lock out w.e.f. 14.7.1995? and; ii) what relief, if any, were the workmen entitled to?;