JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The petitioner union is challenging the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and Award passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in matter of Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 116 of 1992, which was made by the petitioner in view of the provisions of section 28(1) read with Item No. 6 of Schedule II and Items No. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 2. Few facts would be necessary to be mentioned for better understanding of the matter. The respondents run a hotel under name and style "Hotel Executive Ashok" situate at 5, University Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, wherein about 100 workers happened to be employed. The complainant Union started functioning in the said establishment of the respondents in the last quarter of 1991 and the majority of the workmen employed in the said hotel became its members. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the management of the said hotel did not like the advent of the complaintant Union in the hotel and, therefore, they resorted to an illegal lock out towards the members of the complainant Union with effect from 24-2-1992. It has been alleged that the respondents have no reasonable cause to demand good conduct bond/undertaking from the members of the complainant Union in a specified form, which has been annexed to the complaint before the Industrial Court as Exhibit U-21, as a condition precedent to allow them to work. The petitioner alleged in the present petition that the said act on the part of the management an is "illegal lock out" with effect from 24-2-1992 and formed unfair labour practice which has been deprecated by the provisions of Item No. 6 of Schedule II and Items No. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. 3. The respondents contended that the said Act was not unfair labour practice at all. The respondents also contended that there was no illegal lock out. It is contended by the respondents that the members of the Union started wearing red bands on the heads inside the hotel premises during working hours and also indulged in acts of violence, terrorism, and slogan-shouting etc. and therefore, the management was left with no alternative but to ask for the undertaking from them that they would not engage themselves in such behaviour. and therefore, the management was left with no alternative but to ask for the undertaking from them that they would not engage themselves in such behaviour. It was also contended that the Act of the members of the Union in refusing to give the undertaking amounts to illegal strike with effect from 24-2-1992 and, therefore, the respondents would not be blamable for illegal lock out. 4. The Industrial Court, which was dealing with the said complaint, recorded its findings that complainant did not prove that the respondent company had effected illegal lock out with effect from 24-2-1992. The said Court also held that the complainant did not prove that the insistence of the respondent company for bond/undertaking of good conduct from the members of the complainant Union did not amount to unfair labour practice. It also held that the complainant did not prove that, false, frivolous charge-sheets have been issued to the members of the complainant Union under the grab of absenteeism. Thus the said Court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner Union. 5. Shri N.A. Kulkarni, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted by making reference to the evidence on record that admissions given by Arvind Jain, a witness who happens to be from the employment of the respondents, prove the case of the petitioner and the learned Industrial Court did not notice this important aspect of the case and had landed in error in not giving effect to it while passing the judgment and Award which has been made the target of challenge in this petition. Shri N.A. Kulkarni submitted that asking the said undertaking and bond of good behaviour from the members of the petitioner Union amounts to unfair labour practice and the Industrial Court has committed an error in not endorsing that fact in its judgment and Award. He further submitted that by refusal of permission to the members of the petitioner Union to work or entry in the hotel amounts indirectly to a lock out and the learned Industrial Court has also failed in not taking cognizance of that act giving effect to that in the judgment and Award. 6. For substantiating his submission on this point Shri N.A. Kulkarni placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of (Waman Maruti Gharat others v. M.S. Apte and others)1, reported in 1988(II) C.L.R. 222. 6. For substantiating his submission on this point Shri N.A. Kulkarni placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of (Waman Maruti Gharat others v. M.S. Apte and others)1, reported in 1988(II) C.L.R. 222. He submitted that as the judgment and Award passed by the Industrial Court is improper, incorrect and illegal, this Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari by correcting the error committed by it and be pleased to allow the members of the petitioner Union to work in the hotel of the respondents and respondents be directed not to engage themselves in unfair labour practice with the members of the petitioner Union and to recall the said illegal lock out. 7. Shri Cama, Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the members of the petitioner Union were engaging themselves in Acts of violence, assaults and Acts of threat inside the hotel and out of it also. Not only that, they used to wear red band on the heads while on duty and that was totally degrading the atmosphere of the hotel which happens to be a five star hotel. He submitted that by such behaviour, the respondents were put to financial loss by losing the customers. He submitted that the Act of wearing such bands was bad and it is condemnable. Therefore, there was nothing wrong for the respondents in asking the members of petitioner Union to furnish a bond and give the undertaking of good behaviour within the hotel and during working hours. 8. Shri Cama further submitted that the act of not permitting the member of the petitioner Union to work in such a fashion does not amount to illegal lock out. Shri Cama pointed out that the Acts of violence and assault committed by the members of the petitioner Union resulted in calling of the police to hotel in odd hours of the night at the behest of the customers. Therefore, the respondents are justified in asking the members of the petitioner Union to furnish the said undertaking and bond of good behaviour for the purpose of ensuring smooth and proper working of the said hotel in good atmosphere. Therefore, the respondents are justified in asking the members of the petitioner Union to furnish the said undertaking and bond of good behaviour for the purpose of ensuring smooth and proper working of the said hotel in good atmosphere. Shri Cama placed reliance on two judgments of this Court, one pronounced by Single Bench in (General Workers Union v. Sangli Municipal Council, Sangli and others)2, reported in 1984(48) F.L.R. 411, and other judgment of Division Bench in the matter of (Industrial Tubes Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. S.R. Samant, Judge, Industrial Court and others)3, reported in 1980 Labour Law Journal 444. Both Shri N.A. Kulkarni and Shri Cama made a reference to the previous agreement between the parties. Shri N.A. Kulkarni submitted that the petitioner Union has a right to revoke the said agreement. Shri Cama submitted that in that event, fresh complaint will have to be filed if necessary and if the situation demands and in the present matter the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such contentions. 9. In the matter of Waman Maruti Gharat and others v. M.S. Apte and others, (supra) a Single Bench of this Court held that in the facts and circumstances of that particular case nothing was brought on record by the respondents to show that there were Acts of violence and indiscipline which made the respondents to insist upon the undertaking of the type involved in the said case. It went on observing further that "even considering the material on record, it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the undertaking insisted upon by the respondent happens to be justified either in law or on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The first part of the undertaking requires the employee to state that he is calling off the illegal strike of 5th May, 1978 (strike was declared illegal on 3rd May, 1978). Second part of undertaking is also objectionable. There is no evidence on record at all to show that at any time any particular employee or employees have indulged in causing any damage to the property, machinery and any material in the factory. If there was material on record, may be on the basis of the present law, the employer might have been justified in asking for an undertaking of this type". If there was material on record, may be on the basis of the present law, the employer might have been justified in asking for an undertaking of this type". The said judgment also indicated that insistence upon an undertaking in that case constituted an industrial dispute. This Court does not consider that aspect of the judgment because, in the present matter, none has disputed that the present complaint was relating to an industrial dispute. 10. In the judgment of General Workers Union v. Sangli Municipal Council, Sangli and others (supra) Single Bench of this Court held that "As regards Item No. 5 of Schedule IV of the Act, in the first instance, no case has been made out to show that one set of workers has been shown favouritism or partiality against another set of workers. The complaint is against an individual employee. This is apart from the fact that the present transfer and promotion can by no stretch of imagination be said to have been effected as an unfair labour practice in the sense that term is understood under the said Act." It further held that, "even so, the promotion given to the second respondent would not be covered by either Item 5 to Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. If the Municipal Council had acted bona fide believing that the said resolutions were binding upon it, then it cannot be said that it had shown any favouritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merits". The Single Bench further observed that "in the present case, since the record shows that at least on two prior occasions an attempt was made to transfer employees which was later on abandoned, the present transfer and promotion fell in line with the earlier attempts and therefore, it should be held that it was effected only to undermine the prestige of the petitioner-Union and discourage employees from joining the same." Single Bench further held that "there is difference between an illegal act and an unfair labour practice. What complainant under the act has to prove is an unfair labour practice and not merely that act is illegal. The remedy for challenging an Act which is illegal but does not amount to unfair labour practice is different not that by way of complaint under the present Act (P.U.L.P.)." 11. What complainant under the act has to prove is an unfair labour practice and not merely that act is illegal. The remedy for challenging an Act which is illegal but does not amount to unfair labour practice is different not that by way of complaint under the present Act (P.U.L.P.)." 11. The Division Court of Bombay High Court held in the case of Industrial Tubes Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. S.R. Samant, Judge, Industrial Court and others (supra) as follows:--- "The concluding words of section 25(5) of the Maharashtra Act only emphasise that it is the illegality created by the breach of section 24(1) of this Act, and not the one created by or under any other Act that is contemplated to wipe out under section 25(5) of the Act on withdrawal of the strike. Such withdrawal of the strike cannot wipe out the illegality created by section 24 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The fact that the act or omission covered by section 24(1)(i) of this Act and section 23(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act happens to be same is beside the point and makes no difference to the illegality under section 24(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act being beyond the scope of section 25 of this Act. This continued illegality of the strike makes Item 4 of Schedule IV inapplicable to the act of the employers. It is attracted only when the strike is legal." 12. The Division Court further observed:--- "On the petitioner's contention that insistence on good conduct bonds on account of reasons unconnected with the strike are outside the pale of Item 4 of Schedule IV. It was held that there is much substance in this contention. Unfair labour practice under this item consists of insisting on a bond from the workmen, who were on legal strike. The underlying object in treating it as an unfair labour practice appears to be to extend protection to workmen against possible humiliation or victimization for their legitimate trade union activities. This Clause has no reference where the bond is insisted in a situation de hors of and unconnected with any such strike. There is no nexus between the reasons for such bond and the strike of the workmen. This Clause has no reference where the bond is insisted in a situation de hors of and unconnected with any such strike. There is no nexus between the reasons for such bond and the strike of the workmen. No such question of humiliation or victimization can arise when ill-advised workmen are found to be bent on indulging in act of assaults and violence, intimidation, go-slow tactics and other illegal activities in defiance of legal provisions, standing orders and rules of conduct implicit in accepting jobs by them". 12-A. Thus, in view of the observations made by Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court, the conclusion drawn by the Industrial Court embodied in its judgment and Award passed will have to be examined keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in context with the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. In this matter following points can be treated important points because the submissions advanced by the litigating parties revolve around them:- 1. The violence indulged in by the members of the petitioner Union (Maharashtra Labour Union). 2. The members of Maharashtra Labour Union were abusing the executive staff members of the hotel and were shouting slogans outside the hotel premises. 3. That the members of the Maharashtra Labour Union were distributing red bands to its members in the hotel premises and those members were wearing those red bands around their heads in addition to uniform of the hotel and were targeting the discipline of the hotel. 14. Following information is necessary to be mentioned for clarity and understanding of the matter. Prior to 30th of December, 1991 an Union known as Bhartiya Kamgar Sena was working in the hotel and majority of workmen were members of said Union. On 30-12-1991 Maharashtra Labour Union came in existence and about 106 workmen were members of the said Union as per the claim made by the petitioner Union. The petitioner Union alleged that the General Manager of Hotel Executive Ashoka and Vice President and Security Officer were asking those members of Maharashtra Labour Union to abandon the said Union and rejoin Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. There was an agreement between Bhartiya Kamgar Sena on one side and the hotel management on other side. The petitioner Union alleged that the General Manager of Hotel Executive Ashoka and Vice President and Security Officer were asking those members of Maharashtra Labour Union to abandon the said Union and rejoin Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. There was an agreement between Bhartiya Kamgar Sena on one side and the hotel management on other side. One Rajan Nair was General Secretary of complainant Maharashtra Labour Union, at the relevant time and Arun Vasudeo Soman was the President of the said Union at the relevant time. It has come in the evidence that Arun Soman and Rajan Nair were working in Telco, Pune, Arun Soman was Treasurer and Mr. Nair was working as President. Both of them stood dismissed from Telco and reference in that context is pending in the Labour Court. The petitioner alleged that on 5-1-1992 Baban Atmaram Bizve came for work in the morning shift at 6.45 a.m. but he was not permitted to punch his card by Mr. Khan, Dipak Angirwal and Arun Jagtap and one unknown person who were present in the security office. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Personal Manager of Hotel Executive Ashoka gave indication by finger to gundas and the said gundas assaulted Baban Bizve who according to the petitioner's case, sustained a bleeding injury and was admitted in Sassoon Hospital and police complaint came to be lodged. On 13-1-1992 said Baban Bizve was suspended by the respondents. It is the say of the petitioner Union that the members of the Union are ready to work, but the hotel management is not permitting them to work unless they execute an undertaking and bond of good behaviour. 15. Arvind Jain, a witness examined by the Hotel Executive Ashoka, stated that on 19-1-1992 Foreman Kanjale was threatened and abused by many employees who told him not to go for work and those persons were (a) Philips Renold, (b) Hanumant Kamble, (c) Baban Bhise, (d) Vijay Shetty, and (d) Tachtode. On 20th January, 1992, Cook namely Sundar Pujari, rang up the police and made a complaint that there were some outsiders in the hotel and they were threatening the employees. On account of his complaint (it turned out to be a false complaint later on) the employees stopped work for 35 minutes under the leadership of Sundar Pujari and it caused lot of inconvenience to the hotel management and the customers. On account of his complaint (it turned out to be a false complaint later on) the employees stopped work for 35 minutes under the leadership of Sundar Pujari and it caused lot of inconvenience to the hotel management and the customers. On the same day at 3 O'clock (probably 3 p.m.) some body rang up the police again and told that in room No. 303 and 219, there were some outsiders calling the employees in the room and threatening them. In view of that P.S.I. Mr. Salve came to the hotel and after visiting those rooms he found that there was nothing. On account of this misconduct on the part of the employees, the persons named (1) Philips Renaold, (2) Hanumant Kamble, (3) Philips Deve, (4) T.P. Koli, (5) Ramdas Pakal, (6) Sudhakar More, (7) Shiva Bhajanbar and (8) Tachatode were suspended by the hotel management. After suspension, those workmen assembled in front of the main gate of the hotel and started exercising terrorism, in and around the hotel and they started threatening the workers who were interested to attend the work. Thy also started shouting slogans. On 26-1-1992, Krishana Topdar and Hanumant Kamble came to the hotel and started abusing the Personnel Manager and the Vice Chairman in front of Personnel Security staff. On 1-2-1992 Ramdas Phakal abused the Restaurant Manager because of the delay in the services and after finishing his duties at 8.00 a.m. in the morning, he went out of the hotel at 9.40 a.m. Between this time he was busy in distributing red bands having letters "M.L.U." embossed on it. On 3-2-1992, Ramdas Phakal fought with the General Manager and he abused and threatened him by telling that he would call Rajan Nair and gundas who would kill the said General Manager and his family members. Arvind Jain stated that it happened at 12.00 midnight on that day. 16. On 3rd of February, 1992, the suspended workmen threatened and beat Food Graft Institution trainees and asked them not to go to work and told them that, if they would go to work, they would be beaten. On the same day at 4.45 p.m. the suspended employees along with some gundas came to the hotel and started putting red flags in and around the hotel. 17. On the same day at 4.45 p.m. the suspended employees along with some gundas came to the hotel and started putting red flags in and around the hotel. 17. Respondent company had filed complaint bearing (U.L.P.) No. 2/92 in the Industrial Court against Maharashtra Labour Union and Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. Said Industrial Court passed interim relief in favour of the hotel management and that order was confirmed by Industrial Court. A writ petition came to be filed vide No. 1376/1992 challenging the said order and in the matter of said writ petition the High Court stayed the order of the Industrial Court (interim order) pending hearing of the writ petition. Said writ petition was filed on 9-3-1992 and on 15-6-1992 the High Court had stayed the interim order passed by the Industrial Court. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 24-2-1992, though the members of petitioner Union are ready to attend the work, they were not permitted to work by the hotel management who insisted that they should furnish undertaking and execute bond of good behaviour. General Secretary of petitioner Union, Rajan Nair had sent letter to Labour Commissioner, Pune on 25-2-1992. A letter to that effect has been sent to the Police Commissioner of Pune also. The stand of the petitioner Union is that its members are not ready to furnish said undertaking and bond of good behaviour in the form suggested by respondent hotel management. The stand which has been made clear by the petitioner Union is that they are ready to furnish such undertaking and bond in view of the order of Industrial Court. The petitioner Union contended that hotel management had not informed the Union regarding the unrest, giving slogans by its members, act of gherao etc., nor intimation has been given about the allegations that the members of the Union were wearing red bands on the head in addition to uniform provided by the hotel management. It is their say that the respondent hotel management is resorting to an illegal lock out. Not only that it published an advertisement calling for recruitment of new staff members. 18. Shri Cama clarified by making submission that the contentions raised by the Union are false and advertisement which has been published was for a later period and not relating to the present matter. 19. Not only that it published an advertisement calling for recruitment of new staff members. 18. Shri Cama clarified by making submission that the contentions raised by the Union are false and advertisement which has been published was for a later period and not relating to the present matter. 19. Schedule II of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act indicates that it would be unfair labour practice on the part of employer if they engage:--- 1) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to organise, form, join or assist a trade union and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, that is to say--- (a) threatening employees with discharge or dismissal, if they join a union; (b) threatening a lock out or closure, if a union should be organised; (c) granting wage increase to employees at crucial periods of union organisation, with a view to undermining the efforts of the union at organisation, 2) To dominate, interfere with, or contribute, support-financial or otherwise to any union, that is to say--- (a) an employer taking an active interest in organising a union of his employees; and (b) an employer showing partiality or granting favour to one of several unions attempting to organise his employees or to its members, where such a union is not a recognised union. 3) To establish employer sponsored unions. 4) To encourage or discourage membership in any union by discriminating against any employer, that is to say--- (a) discharging or punishing an employee because he urged other employees to join or organise a union; (b) discharging or dismissing an employee for taking part in any strike (not being a strike which is deemed to be an illegal strike under this Act); (c) changing seniority rating of employee because of union activities; (d) refusing to promote employees to higher posts on account of their union activities; (e) giving unmerited promotions to certain employees, with a view to show discord amongst the other employees, or to undermine the strength of their union; (f) discharging office-bearers or active union members, on account of union activities. Item 5 is not relevant to this case. Therefore, this Court comes to Item 6 which indicates to propose or continuing lock out deemed to be illegal under this Act. 20. Item 5 is not relevant to this case. Therefore, this Court comes to Item 6 which indicates to propose or continuing lock out deemed to be illegal under this Act. 20. Schedule III speaks of unfair labour practice on the part of Trade Unions, viz. 1) To advise or actively support or instigate any strike deemed to be illegal under this Act. 2) To coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organisation or to join unions or refrain from joining any union, that is to say--- (a) for a union or its members to picketing in such a manner that non-striking employees are physically debarred from entering the work place; (b) to indulge in acts of force or violence or to hold out threats of intimidation in connection with a strike against non-striking employees or against managerial staff. Item 3 and 4 are not relevant for this matter. Therefore, this Court goes to Item 5. 5) To stage, encourage or instigate such forms of coercive actions as willful "go-slow" squatting on the work premises after working hours of "gherao" of any of the members of the managerial staff. 21. Schedule IV, Item 6 indicates that, to employ employees as "badlis" causal or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice. Schedule IV, Item 8 indicate that to recruit employees during a strike which is not an illegal strike is an unfair labour practice. 22. Chapter V embodied as section 24 speaks of illegal strike and lock out. "Section 24. Illegal strike and lock out.---(1) In this Act, unless the context requires otherwise.--- (1) "illegal strike" means a strike which is commenced or continued. 22. Chapter V embodied as section 24 speaks of illegal strike and lock out. "Section 24. Illegal strike and lock out.---(1) In this Act, unless the context requires otherwise.--- (1) "illegal strike" means a strike which is commenced or continued. (a) without giving to the employer notice of strike in the prescribed form, or within fourteen days of the giving of such notice; (b) where there is recognised union, without obtaining the vote of the majority of the members of the union, in favour of the strike before the notice of the strike is given; (c) during the pendency of conciliation proceeding under the Bombay Act of the Central Act and seven days after the conclusion of such proceeding in respect of matters covered by the notice of strike; (d) where submission in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of strike is registered under section 66 of the Bombay Act, before such submission, is lawfully revoked; (e) where a industrial dispute in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of strike has been referred to the arbitration of a Labour Court or the Industrial Court voluntarily under sub-section (6) of section 58 or section 71 of the Bombay Act, during the arbitration proceeding before the date on which the arbitration proceedings are completed or the date on which the Award of the arbitrator comes into operation, whichever is later; (f) during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator under the Central Act and before the date on which the arbitration proceedings are concluded, if such proceedings are in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of strike; (g) in cases where an industrial dispute has been referred to the arbitration of a Labour Court or the Industrial Court under sections 72, 73 or 73-A of the Bombay Act, during such arbitration proceedings or before the date on which the proceeding is completed or the date on which the Award of the Court comes into operation, whichever is later, if such proceedings are in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of strike; (h) in case where an industrial dispute has been referred to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court under the Central Act, during the pendency of such proceedings before such authority and before the conclusion of such proceedings, if such proceedings is in respect of any of the matters covered by notice of strike; Provided that, nothing in Clauses (g) and (h) shall apply to any strike where the union has offered in writing to submit the industrial dispute to arbitration under sub-section (6) of section 58 of the Bombay Act or section 10-A of the Central Act, and (i) the employer does not accept the offer; or (ii) the employer accepts the offer but disagreeing on the choice of the arbitrator, does not agree to submit the dispute to arbitration without naming an arbitrator as provided in the Bombay Act, and thereafter, the dispute has been referred for arbitration of the Industrial Court under section 73-A of the Bombay Act, or where the Central Act applies, while disagreeing on the choice of the arbitrator, the employer does not agree to submit the dispute to arbitration of the arbitrator recommended by the State Government in this behalf, and thereafter, the dispute has been referred to adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, under the Central Act; or--- (iii) during any period in which any settlement or Award is in operation in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or Award; (2) "illegal lock-out" means a lock out which is commenced or continued--- (a) without giving to the employees, a notice of lock-out in the prescribed form or within fourteen days of the giving of such notice; (b) during the pendency of conciliation proceeding under the Bombay Act or the Central Act and seven days after the conclusion of such proceeding in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of lockout (c) during the period when a submission in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of lockout is registered under section 66 of the Bombay Act, before such submission is lawfully revoked; (d) where an industrial dispute in respect of matter covered by the notice of lock out has been referred to the arbitration of a Labour Court or the Industrial Court voluntarily under sub-section (6) of section 58 or section 71 of the Bombay Act, during the arbitration proceeding or before the date on which the arbitration proceeding is completed or the date on which the Award of the arbitrator comes into operation, whichever is later; (e) during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator under the Central Act and before the date on which the arbitration proceedings are concluded, if such proceedings are in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of lock-out; (f) in cases where an industrial dispute has been referred to the arbitration of a Labour Court or the Industrial Court compulsorily under sections 72, 73 or 73-A of the Bombay Act, during such arbitration proceedings or before the date on which the proceeding is completed, or the date on which the Award of the Court comes into operation whichever is later, if proceedings are in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of lock-out; or (g) in cases where an industrial dispute has been referred to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court under the Central Act, during the pendency of such proceedings before such authority and before the conclusion of such proceedings, if such proceedings is in respect of any of the matters covered by the notice of lock out; Provided that, nothing in Clauses (f) and (g) shall apply to any lockout where the employer has offered in writing to submit the industrial dispute to arbitration under sub-section (6) of section 58 of the Bombay Act, or section 20-A of the Central Act; and (i) the union does not accept the offer; (ii) the union accepts the offer, but disagreeing on the choice of the arbitrator does not agree to submit the dispute to arbitration without naming an arbitrator as provided in the Bombay Act, and thereafter, the dispute has been referred for arbitration of the Industrial Court under section 73-A of the Bombay Act; or where the Central Act applies, while disagreeing on the choice of the arbitrator the union does not agree to submit the dispute to arbitration of the arbitrator recommended by the State Government in his behalf and thereafter, the dispute has been referred for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, under the Central Act; (h) during any period in which any settlement or Award is in operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or Award. 23. In this case from the facts which have surfaced from the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the litigating parties and the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that none of the parties was able to prove that phenomenon was "legal strike" or "lock out" legal or illegal. Though letter has been sent by Rajan Nair, General Secretary, Maharashtra Labour Union on 25-2-1992 informing hotel management that the members of Maharashtra Labour Union were willing and ready to resume on duties, there appears to be no real intention to resume the work, because while writing the said letter the petitioner union had informed the hotel management---respondents that they were not ready to execute the undertaking and furnish the bond of good behaviour as sought by the hotel management. The hotel management has not indicated any demand against the interest of the members of the petitioner union as it has been indicated by provisions of section 24(2) of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. Thus, the phenomenon is neither legal strike nor lock out legal or illegal. To meet this situation, Shri Cama has referred to the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in the matter of (The Bombay Dying Mfg. Co. Ltd. others v. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha others)4, reported in 1986(II) C.L.R. 242, wherein it has been held by this Court that even assuming that the workmen have not indulged in violence or indiscipline, still the employer has a right to tell the workmen not to enter the work premises in case the workmen had made it clear that they have no intention to carry out their duties. The work premises are not to be used by the workmen as a matter of right even though the workmen had no intention to carry out the work. The interim order of the Industrial Court, based on the findings that the workmen had right to enter the work premises and make use of the premises during the working hours even if the workmen had no intention or desire to carry out their normal duties, is entirely misconceived and is required to be set aside. 24. In the matter of Industrial Tubes Manufacturing Co. 24. In the matter of Industrial Tubes Manufacturing Co. Ltd. case (supra) it was held that the employer is entitled to ask the workmen reporting for duty to sign bond of good behaviour when the workmen had gone on strike which has been declared to be "illegal strike" by the Industrial Court and workmen not furnishing such bond and the employer not permitting such workmen to resume duty, such behaviour of the employer would not be called as "lock out". The Division Bench of this Court in Industrial Tubes Manufacturing Co. Ltd.'s case held that Item No. 4 of Schedule No. IV would not be applicable to the said phenomenon, because, it is attracted only when the strike is illegal. In the present case there is no case of favouritism or discrimination shown to any employees of other union i.e. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. 25. In the present case it is pertinent to note that the evidence on record does not show that there were 106 members of Maharashtra Labour Union on the relevant date when the complaint was filed against Shri Arun Soman who was not able to produce the receipt of those 106 members who had shifted from Bhartiya Kamgar Sena to Maharashtra Labour Union. The petitioners were unable to prove that the members of the petitioner union as alleged had not used violence and assault against some employees who were attending to duty. In fact there are reports in the Police Station that some complaints were made by the members of the petitioner union to the Police Station, police visited the hotel premises and found that there was no crime committed. Even as per the case of the petitioners, Baban Bizwe was assaulted by some persons and according to his allegations it was at the behest and at the instigation of, at the signal of the Personnel Manager of the Hotel that a complaint was made in the Police Station. As per the evidence of Arvind Jain on 19-1-1992, Kanjale, Foreman, was on duty but he was threatened and abused by many employees. It is pertinent to mention that it is the case of the petitioner union that they had majority of the membership, which indirectly means that Kanjale was threatened and abused by the members of petitioner union. Those persons threatened him that if he resumed duty his hands and neck would be damaged. It is pertinent to mention that it is the case of the petitioner union that they had majority of the membership, which indirectly means that Kanjale was threatened and abused by the members of petitioner union. Those persons threatened him that if he resumed duty his hands and neck would be damaged. As per evidence of Arvind Jain on 26-1-1992, Krishna Topdar and Hanumant Kamble came to the hotel and started abusing the Personnel Manager and the Vice Chairman in front of the Personnel Security men. On 1-2-1992 Ramdas Phakal abused Restaurant Manager because of the delay in service. On 2-2-1992 Ramdas Phakal finished his duty at 8.00 a.m. and went out of the hotel at 9.45 a.m. and in between the said period he was distributing red-bands which were embossed with letters "M.L.U.". His evidence shows that on 3rd February, 1992 Ramdas Phakal fought with the General Manager and abused and threatened him by telling him that he would call Rajan Nair and gundas and who would kill the said General Manager and his family members. On 3rd of February, 1992 the suspended workers threatened and beat food graft institution trainees not to go to the work and if they would go they would be beaten. On the same day at about 4.45 p.m. the suspended employees alongwith some gundas came to the hotel and started putting red-flags in and around the hotel premises. 26. It is not disputed that Hotel Executive Ashoka is Five Star Hotel. It is also not disputed that it has provided uniform to the employees of the hotel which is to be used by them during working hours. If some of the staff members use red-bands on their heads over such uniform, could it be called as a decent thing or proper thing? Neither the customers nor the management would like it. Uniforms are meant for maintaining the uniformity amongst the members of industry or organisation as a matter of discipline and decency. Anybody who attempts to demolish it would be liable to be called as a person committing an indisciplined act or at least an improper act which would be tarnishing the discipline code of the work of an institution or organisation or the company. Apart from that, it would be causing serious damage to the commercial reputation and goodwill of the said institution, organisation or company. Apart from that, it would be causing serious damage to the commercial reputation and goodwill of the said institution, organisation or company. It is a matter of experience that in hotel business, one needs tidy things and discipline in work, and uniform as well as food service and other services rendered, satisfactory tune in it is of utmost importance. On that count, mainly the hotel industry grows and earns the business as well as goodwill. Whether the management is entitled to protect its business, goodwill and discipline? The answer considered from all corners would unequivocal terms would be in the affirmative. 27. When the strike is not legal as the petitioner union did not follow the legal formalities before going on a legal strike and when the act on the part of the respondents hotel management is not "lock out", as held by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, the management, employer is entitled to ask for a bond and undertaking of good behaviour in writing from such workmen. The management is entitled to ask them to write such undertaking and bond in a particular form provided for protecting its interest. As a natural corollary, it goes without saying that it is legally entitled not to allow such workmen to enter the premises till he furnishes such undertaking or bond of good behaviour. 28. Besides that, in the present case the members of the petitioner union indulged in improper activities like making false complaints to police, abusing staff members on duty and not responding to the call of the respondent to resume work. They also restrained other workers who were intending to resume duty, used the red-bands over the uniform provided by the hotel management and tried to tarnish the image of the establishment. These Acts are indecent and improper. They are detrimental to the interest of the respondents hotel, because by such activities their prospective customers would be reluctant in coming to the said hotel either for lodging, boarding or for eating eatables in the restaurant, who from the decent lot of the society would like to engage themselves in such indecent and improper atmosphere where some of the staff members are shouting slogans, following violence and presenting themselves in bad or shabby dress? In other institutions these acts may appear to be less dangerous in shade or shades but in hotel industry which has back bone of decency, cleanliness, tidiness and charming presentation, it would be definitely dangerous to the interest of the said hotel business. When the strike is not legal and there is no lock out and when such employees are only writing letters and informing hotel management that they are ready to resume duty but not signing the undertaking and bond as required by the management for protecting its interest and security, the management would be justified in not allowing such employees to enter into the premises and to resume the work. Why should the management incur further expenses in security in permitting such employees to enter the premises for causing damages to the property as well as good will by their indecent and improper acts? Apart from that without following due course of law, as record shows, the members of the petitioner union intended to follow "go slow policy". If such persons are permitted to make entry in the hotel premises and resume the work/duty, the persons who would suffer more would be the customers because those who come to the said hotel would be waiting for the food to be served or services to be rendered and would be disappointed by the "go slow" policy of the employees. The larger interest of the society is to be also protected by not permitting such employees to go for indisciplined activities. 29. The ratio of this judgment gets in tune with ratio of the judgment cited above which show that such employer or employers are entitled to demand undertaking and the bond of good behaviour executed from such employees for the purpose of maintaining discipline for internal business. They are entitled to get such undertaking and bond from such employees for protecting their property. This Court goes further ahead by observing that such employer or employers are entitled to get such undertaking and bonds executed from them for the purpose of protecting likelihood of the loss in business and irreparable loss in goodwill. This Court goes further in observing that such employer or employers are entitled to get such undertaking and bonds executed from such employee/employees for protecting the class of the society which comes to the hotel as its customers. 30. This Court goes further in observing that such employer or employers are entitled to get such undertaking and bonds executed from such employee/employees for protecting the class of the society which comes to the hotel as its customers. 30. After careful examination of the record and the judgment and Award passed by the Industrial Court, this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Judge has carefully examined each and every relevant facet of the matter. He has considered the observations of the legal precedent submitted before it and after appreciating the evidence on record and adverting its judicial attention to the facts and circumstances has come to correct conclusion and passed the judgment dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds no necessity to issue a writ of certiorari as the said judgment is correct, proper and legal. 31. The petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. They are blamable for their misconduct-indisciplined conduct. Said litigants are not entitled to have discretionary relief in the nature of a writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, petition stands dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. -----