Chapter: 2.4.5 Threatening of a Lock Out in the M.R.T.U.P.U.L.P.

Threatening of a Lock Out

• In the case,

The Gimeral Secretary, Engg. Labour-Union
V
T. K. Steels Pvt. Ltd.
1989, II CLR 846 - (Bom. HC).

• the Unfair-Labour Practice being under item l(a) and 1(b) of Schedule II of the MRTU and PULP Act ' 1971 ...220 employees resigned as a result of declaration of lock-out.
• The same does not amount to unfair labour practice in the facts of the case.
• It is clear from reading items l(a) and 1(b) of Sec. II that the threat to lockout should of that nature wherein the company wishes to prohibit organization of any union, and as such the case of the petitioner union, cannot come within the ambit as Sch. II item 1(b).
• The High Court observed that, 'Threat of lock-out shoal d be of that nature wherein the company wishes to prohibit organization of union.
• Union is already in existence since long.
• In earlier complaint the complainant union had made a specific averment that lock-out was deliberately commended to undermine the complainant union.
• This allegation was negatived by the Industrial Court and confirmed by the High Court.
• As such the complainant cannot now make an allegation that the step of lock-out was taken to coerce the employees to resign.'