- (1.) On earlier occasion the appeal was dismissed for default. An application for recalling the order dated 15th June, 2005 having been filed, we proposed to hear the said application along with the appeal and to pass order on the said application in case Mr.Ghosh points out that there are sufficient materials to allow the appeal. But in course of hearing, we have heard the appeal on merit. In the circumstances, the application for recalling is hereby allowed and the order dated 15th June, 2005 is hereby recalled and the appeal is disposed of as hereafter since agreed to by the parties, who had argued comprehensively, treating the appeal, by consent of parties, as on day's list for hearing.
(2.) The declaration of suspension of work or lock-out was the subject-matter of the dispute since referred to the learned Tribunal under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Tribunal had come to a conclusion that there was no justification to suspend the work and declare the lock-out. This was challenged by the employer in the writ jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had affirmed the order of the learned Tribunal dismissing the writ petition. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr.Ghosh appearing for the employer submits that there were materials to show that the declaration of lock-out was justified on account of financial crisis and labour indiscipline due to which the employer had no access to the factory. He points out to the evidence of the workman who admitted the financial crisis of the employer. He also points out that the balance sheets furnished for the assessment year 1989-90 and from those balance sheets it appears that though at one point of time there was an upward economic situation but ultimately the company ran at loss. Mr. Ghosh next contends, on the ground of biasness, that the Tribunal had to come to Mumbai for taking evidence of the employer under order of this Court, but this had created a bias in the mind of learned Tribunal. He also contends that the learned Tribunal had omitted to consider the evidence before it with regard to the financial difficulty. He then contends that he has also confined his consideration to the Exhibit-5 and ignored the pleadings and statement of the witness pointing out to the decision of the learned Single Judge at page 97 of this application. Referring to page 183 to this application Mr. Ghosh points out that the learned Single Judge has wrongly held that no materials to establish the financial difficulties, were produced. On this ground, according to Mr. Ghosh, the order of the learned Tribunal could not be sustained. Mr. Ghosh further submits that the learned Tribunal suggested various ways and means as to how the management should function which is wholly outside the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal.;