JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Placing reliance in the decisions in the matters of (Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, Bombay v. Solid Containers Limited and others)1, reported in 1995(4) Bom.C.R. 288 and (Modistone Ltd. v. Modistone Employees Union and others)2, reported in 2001(3) Bom.C.R. 436 , the learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the lifting of the lockout was on the condition that the employees should give an undertaking as was asked for by the petitioners from the complainants, namely the respondent No. 1 herein, who had refused to give such undertaking, and in the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Industrial Court to hold that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 has stated that the Industrial Court, on analysis of the materials on record, has arrived at the finding that the employees though had reported for duty, they were not allowed to resume nor the wages were paid to them, and has also drawn attention to the format of the undertaking which was asked for, a copy of which is annexed to the petition as Exhibit-C on page 38. 3. Apart from the fact that the finding arrived at by the Industrial Court about refusal to allow the employees to resume to their duties being based on assessment of the materials on record and being essentially a finding of fact the same cannot be subjected to judicial review in the writ petition, bare reading of the format of the undertaking would justify rejection of the petition in limine. It is well-settled that though the employer may be justified in asking for undertaking in case of the workmen having been found to have indulged in violent activities, to ensure the smooth functioning of the industry, the employer cannot insist upon obtaining confession from the employees about the illegality of the strike or the unruly acts on their part nor about waiver of their right to claim wages without even holding any inquiry in that regard in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. 4. The para of the format of the undertaking reads thus :- "I say that I am sorry that on 8-1-1992 President of Shramik Sahakar Sangh had unauthorisedly come inside the factory premises and assaulted Dr. N.V. Mahadevia, Managing Director of factory. I am sorry for such incidence which had taken place. No such incidence will occur in future. I am agreeable to all the terms of your notice of lockout. Hence I have no interest to pursue two complaints being U.L.P. No. 164/92 and 802/90 filed by Shramik Sahakar Sangh and I withdraw my support alleged to have been given by me. Hence I therefore request you to allow me to resume my duties." Bare reading of the above para discloses that no undertaking in the manner asked for was permissible and refusal on the part of the employees to execute such undertaking cannot be held to be justification for refusing them to resume to their duties. Being so, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case and it does not warrant any interference. 5. The decisions in Solid Containers Limited (supra) as well as in Modistone Ltd. (supra), rather than supporting the petitioners case, justify the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court. Hence the petition is rejected. -----