S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This writ petition is filed by M/s. Hotel Hans Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Secretary( Labor ,Delhi Administration dated 2''.3.1989,
prohibiting the continuation of lock out u/s 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the dispute between the Management and the workmen,
represented by Hotel Mazdoor Union, was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal-III Delhi.
(2) 85 workmen of the petitioner had given a charter of their demands in December, 1989 for raising their remuneration, dearness allowance and
similar monetary benefits. The actual demand was raised by them through a Statement of Claim dated 6.1.89 before the Conciliation Officer.
Apparently a, there was a partial strike by the workmen by the end of December, 1988, resulting into the alleged stoppage of egress and ingress to
the Hotel. The Management secured a restraint order from this Court on 9.1.1989, for holding demonstrations within the radius of 60 ft. from the
building. According to the Management on 18 1.1989 the Workmen refused to join duty. According to the Workmen the Management refused to
give them work. On the same day the workmen approached the Labour Authorities for refusal on the part of the Management to give them work
and declaring illegal lock out. The Management was, Therefore, asked by the Labour Inspector to be present before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner on 23.1.1989 for the resolution of the dispute.
(3) On January 21, 1989, in reply to the said letter, the Management informed that although the Hotel was running smoothly, the workmen had
absented themselves and the factual position can be ascertained by the authorities by a visit to the Hotel. On the same day the Management
purported to issue memos to the workmen for absenting from work. They allegedly sent a notice on 25.1.1989 to the workmen informing them
that they were not interested in the jobs as they had abandoned the work and that they should contact the Accounts Department for the settlement
of their accounts.
(4) The attempts for resolution of the dispute were being made by the Labour Department and the discussion was on. Since the Management was
saying that there was no lock-out and that the workmen did not want to work, Labour Inspector R.K. Grover was making efforts to present the
workmen in the Hotel so that the work could be allotted to them. But the Management was dithering. On 17.2.1989 the Labour Inspector
informed the Management that he would be going to the Hotel, on 18.2,1989 at 11.00 a.m. with the workmen so that the duties could be allotted
to them. In the said letter the Labour Inspector had stated that be had made a similar attempt for putting the workmen on duty by going to the
Hotel, but none was present on behalf of the Management on 17.2.1989. The Inspector had referred to the termination of service in the said letter.
In reply, the Management wrote on 22.2.1989 that they had not terminated the services of the employees, but instead the employees had absented
without any intimation. As the Management was not cooperating in putting the workmen on duty, on 6.3.1989 the Under Secretary, Delhi
Administration informed the Management of the various attempts made to resolve the disputes and the failure of cooperation by the Management.
This further confirmed that the Management had expressed its inability to put the workmen on duty. The Management was informed that this
amounted to resorting to lock-out and a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Management as to why further action should not be taken against
them. On 15.3.1989 the Delhi Administration referred the original dispute regarding remuneration, dearness allowance, etc., which gave rise to the
lock out, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter the impugned order was passed on 20.3.1989.
(5) The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that by termination of service of the workmen, whether rightly or wrongly, the relationship of
employer-employee had come to an end and, Therefore, there was no question of a Jock-out within the meaning of Section 2(L) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. It was also submitted that the petitioner should have an opportunity to show that there was no lock-out or that the lock-out was not
illegal and the said question can only be determined by a reference u/s 10(1) of the Act. Both the submissions are misconceived and untenable in
law.
(6) All along the case of the petitioner before the Authority and before the workmen was one of abandonment of employment. It was not their case
that the services of the workmen were terminated. The petitioners are merely trying to catch a straw in the form of one word termination used by
Mr. R.K. Grover, Labour Inspector, in his letter dated 17.2.1989. That was not decisive of the legal meaning of the word termination. As a matter
of fact, the Management itself by its letter dated 22.2.1989 denied that there was any termination and asserted that the employees had absented
without intimation. Thus, factually there was no termination of service and it was only an after-thought by the petitioners to challenge the impugned
order. Besides, it is no termination in the eye of law. The petitioners'' submission that lock-out can only be declared by an adjudication on a
reference u/s 10(1) is clearly contrary to the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act and, particularly. Section 10(3), 22 and 23 of the Act. u/s 22(2)
no lock-out can be declared unless the provisions of Section are complied with. Section 23 prohibits lock-out during the pendency and a period
subsequent to it where the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal or arbitration proceedings are going on. In furtherance of this
scheme of the Act, a power is conferred on the Appropriate Government by Section 10(3) of the Act to prohibit continuance of lock-out in
connection with the Industrial Dispute referred to a Labour Court or a Tribunal. In the present case the workmen had raised their demand in
regard to remuneration, dearness allowance and other monetary benefits in December, 1988 and in January, 1989 the Conciliation proceedings
had started. Eventually a reference was made to the Industrial Court.
(7) When the Industrial Dispute was, thus, pending resolution by machinery provided by the Industrial Disputes Act, it was not proper to permit
the Management to create a situation whereby workmen are refused work. The object behind the said provisions of the Act is that neither the
Management nor the Workmen should be permitted to take a unilateral action of lock out or strike so as to disturb industrial peace during the
pendency of conciliation, adjudication or arbitration proceedings. There is a public interest vitally at stake in industrial peace and continuation of
production of wealth. The Labour Authorities made several attempts to resolve the dispute and persuading the Management to take the workmen
on duty. The management failed to attend some meetings and when they attended they expressed their inability to allow any duty to the Workmen.
In order to cover up their unilateral action they raised the unjustified plea of abandonment of work by the Workmen. This was clearly a situation of
lock-out and the Labour Authorities were justified in coming to the conclusion that the Management had declared a lock-out. It may be that in a
given case where prior industrial disputes are not pending before the Authorities, a lock-out is declared. In such a situation a reference u/s 10(1) to
adjudicate whether the lock-out is legal or not may be possible and proper. But Sections 10(3) and 23 provide for a special situation where the
machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act is already set in motion and where its effective continuation and conclusion is not only in the interest of
Management and Workmen, but also in public interest. All the submissions of the petitioner are, Therefore, rejected.
(8) We hold that the Management had declared lock-out in regard to all the employees mentioned in the list annexed with the impugned order,
except some workmen. In para 17.1 to 17.5 of the counter-affidavit workmen named at Serial numbers 15, 17, 39, 42, 47, 65, 66 & 71 are
workmen who have settled their claims prior to the impugned order. So also the workmen named at Serial numbers 3,9, 14, 35 & 38 had ceased
to be employees before the passing of the impugned order. We declare that there is no lock-out in regard to the said workmen. The writ petition is
dismissed with costs. Counsel fee for the respondents Rs. 2,000.00 . Rule is discharged.