BILLION PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner Company has challenged the order passed by the industrial Court dated 21st of July, 1982 rejecting the prayer in terms or Clause 4(ii) of the application. The petitioner Company filed an application for interim relief under section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Apart from the reliefs an interim relief was also asked for preventing workman from resorting to or continuing strike in Pursuance to the latter dated 3rd July, 1982. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to other averments made in the application or the reply filed by the Union. It is that part of the interim relief which was denied to the petitioner Company by the Industrial Court by the impugned order. In para 7 of the order the Industrial Court has given its reasons for refusing to grant the interim relief, which reads as under :

(2.) On the other hand it is contended by Ku. Pradhan that the present enactment being a complete code, the entries relating to unfair labour practices are wholly exhaustive and it is not open to this Court to make any addition to the entries by the process of interpretation or construction. In Entry No. 1 in Schedule III the question of propriety or justifiability of strike is not included. As a matter of fact the said question is beyond the scope and the jurisdiction of the Court concerned, while deciding the question of unfair labour practice, though in a given case under section 25 of the said Act the question of proprietor or justifaibility may be relevant. She also contended that unless it is prima facie shown that the strike resorted to is illegal, the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any interim orders restraining the employees or Union from resorting to a legal strike. In support of her contention she has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in (Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and others) 1982(2) Lab.L.J. 73 and (Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. and others) 1982 Lab. and I.C. 1533.

(3.) For properly appreciating the controversy raised before me it will be advisable if a reference is made to the relevant entry in Schedule III of the Act. Entry No. 1 in Schedule III reads as under :