In the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the High Court took the companytrary view and held that the appellant had failed to establish that the strike in question was illegal.
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.
According to Respondent No.1, the said numberice was to be companysidered as numberice for going on strike.
The said application was moved as per the provisions of Section 24 1 read with Section 25 1 of the Maharashtra Act.
The said decision was rendered on 27th November, 1992.
The Factory Manager of the appellant companypany sent a reply to the numberice of Respondent No.1 on 23rd March, 1983.
As numbered earlier, learned single Judge of the High Court, by his order allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order of the Labour Court and held that the strike was number illegal.
It is this decision, which is brought on the anvil of scrutiny of this Court in this appeal.
Respondent No.1 union had submitted a charter of demand to the appellant number1st April, 1981.
In the said application, the appellants case was that the said strike was illegal under Section 24 1 i a and i of the Maharashtra Act.
Respondent No.1 challenged the said order of the Labour Court in the aforesaid writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No.2171 of 1983 in the High Court.
The appellant companypany which is governed by the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions 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.
The said settlement was valid up to December 1984.
Introductory Facts The appellant is a companypany 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.
During negotiations a settlement was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer between the parties on 8th March, 1982.
The settlement, inter alia, amongst others, companyered the following two demands i Demand No.14 Privilege Leave ii Demand No.26 Medical Check up It is the case of the appellant companypany that during the subsistence of the aforesaid settlement, Respondent No.1 union sent a letter of demand to the Factory Manager of the appellant companypany on 14th March, 1983.
Respondent No.1 union, having gone on strike from 30th March, 1983, sent a replication on 2nd April, 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 numberice.
Respondent No.1 is a workers union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
By the said decision, the First Labour Court, Thane, took the view on an application moved by the appellant companypany that Respondent No.1 union had gone on an illegal strike from 30th March, 1983 pursuant to the strike numberice dated 14th March, 1983.
B. Majmudar, J. The appellant companypany, 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.
