JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the Counsel for both the parties at length. 2. Letters Patent Appeal is admitted. Hearing is expedited. Respondents waive service. 3. We have perused the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also considered the impugned Orders passed by the Industrial Court, Thane. We have also perused the relevant clauses of the Settlements and the classification Orders dated October 30, 1986 issued to the employees including the Machine Operators. It reads as under: "With effect from November 1, 1986 in terms of the settlement dated October 23, 1986, you have been classified as Machine Operator and your basic wage is revised to Rs. 415/- per month in Grade I. The classification in particular is subject to the provisions of the said settlement, which are reproduced below:- 1. All the workmen posted in any grade shall perform the task which may be of a lower grade, as and when the need arises. 2. The workmen placed in a particular job position of a grade may be deployed for any other job position in the same grade in a different department. 3. Organisation and allocation of work is a management function and any dispute or grievance shall be processed under the grievance procedure. Needless to state, though you are designated as Machine Operator, your job as of present will continue to involve all the related preparatory and follow up work including the cleaning of machines, movement of materials, etc. Kindly sign the copy hereof as a token of your having understood and accepted what is stated above". Prima facie we are satisfied that the view taken by the Industrial Court at the interim stage cannot be said to be wrong. Shri Cooper, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has made a clear cut statement that the Machine Operators will be required to clean their "cubic area", i.e., the area surrounding the machine of the Machine Operator only and nothing else. 4. The alleged refusal to clean the surrounding area of machines (cubic area) by the Machine operators on the ground that, that is not the part of their duty is the main bone of contention between the parties. 4. The alleged refusal to clean the surrounding area of machines (cubic area) by the Machine operators on the ground that, that is not the part of their duty is the main bone of contention between the parties. This alleged refusal to do that particular part of the work is termed as an illegal strike by the Appellant Company and the subsequent event appears to be what the employees call is an illegal lock out as the Company insisted from the employees an undertaking to do any work allotted to them. In this legal scuffle between the Employer and the Unions, the ordinary workmen and production suffers. To totally halt the industrial wheels is not a proper work culture. The issue is a very small issue which can be resolved by the Industrial Court after considering evidence, documentary and oral. Meanwhile the Machine Operators cannot make such an issue of their feeble prestige and cannot refuse to do any work for ever. According to us, even the Appellant Company also appears to stretch the things too far. For the small issue both have staked their so-called prestige. If the Industrial Court comes to a finding that the extra/additional work of cleaning the cubic space was not part of their duty as a machine operator, they can be sufficiently rewarded by granting them additional remuneration. By not doing any work at all, the employees would suffer more in every respect than the employer. To bring the employees in the street for such small and trivial issues is not a matured trade union approach. Such issues can be well adjudicated by the Industrial Court before whom the matters are already pending. It is unfortunate that in the face of millions of unemployed young persons, those privileged like the present machine operators should go to the extent of even staking their valuable jobs in hands. An enlightened management would have employed an extra hand instead of losing huge production for such trifle issues. A wise and pragmatic approach is lacking on both the sides. Both have acted to lower down the dignity of labour, the employees considering the work of cleaning their own machine - area as degradation and the Company by teasing the labour to do some work thinking that it would lower down the dignity of the machine operators. A wise and pragmatic approach is lacking on both the sides. Both have acted to lower down the dignity of labour, the employees considering the work of cleaning their own machine - area as degradation and the Company by teasing the labour to do some work thinking that it would lower down the dignity of the machine operators. Both have forgotten that even Mahatma Gandhi had done the work of a scavenger also. Every work/labour has its own equal dignity. The division of labour is for higher efficiency, convenience and discipline to achieve the maximum production which benefits even the Labour. To classify the labour is to enhance the dignity of the labour and not to look down upon any part of the process of work, even sweeping and cleaning. 5. The Industrial Court shall decide the main Complaints on merits finally strictly on the basis of evidence before it as expeditiously as possible. Meanwhile Interim orders in terms of prayers (a) and (b) in the Civil Application.