Judgment :- Tapen Sen, J 1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Trade Union and the Petitioner No. 2 is its Secretary. The Respondent No. 3 (Audiovisual Motion Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. ) is a Company registered under the Companies Act and its business pertains to Still-film processing, printing, enlarging and selling photographic goods. 2. The Petitioners have challenged the Award dated 13.2.2004 passed in Case No. VIII-42/00 by the Learned Industrial Tribunal (Fourth Court), West Bengal, whereby and whereunder it was held that the lock out declared by the Company on 14.7.1995 was justified and that the workmen were not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. 3. According to the Petitioners, out of the 4 Directors, 3 resigned in 1993 and one Mr. Ashok Pal and his wife became Directors. Subsequently, their son also joined the Company as a Director. The Petitioners have stated that thereafter the Company became the “family business” of Mr. Ashok Pal who started creating “pressures” upon the members of the Petitioner No. 1 and began curtailing benefits which were being enjoyed by the workers since long such as, stopping the production incentive bonus, bonus etc. They also stopped attending to “common works” which could have been done easily by the Laboratory and instead, got them done from outside. They also shifted the fixed assets of the Company like Air-conditioners etc. and stopped the maintenance of Generators, Water Pump, Water Line and other machinery. The Petitioners have further alleged that some of the machinery were shifted to the house of the Directors with an intention to close down the Company. The Petitioners raised objection vide Annexure-P/1 against such “illegal activities” of the Company. According to these Petitioners, the relationship between the employers and the employees was very cordial till March, 1993. The employees tried their best to settle some long pending issues like payment of bonus etc. but the Company was reluctant to settle the same and did not even discuss the Charter of Demands submitted by the Union. It is the further case of the Petitioners that when the Management started “creating pressure” upon the employees both “mentally” as well as “financially”, then the Union lodged a General Diary on 13.7.1995 with the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station requesting that their interests be protected. It is the further case of the Petitioners that when the Management started “creating pressure” upon the employees both “mentally” as well as “financially”, then the Union lodged a General Diary on 13.7.1995 with the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station requesting that their interests be protected. They also submitted a Representation vide Annexure-P/2 on 5.5.1995 before the Company for settlement of their demands, such as, nonpayment of bonus for the year 1994, non-payment of salary for April, 1995 and other issues but the Company did nothing and suddenly, on 14.7.1995, declared lock out on false allegations. The Union protested to the lock out and thereafter the matter was referred to the Office of the Labour Commissioner and finally to the Industrial Tribunal (Fourth Court) to decide as to (i) Whether the Management was justified in declaring the lock out w.e.f. 14.7.1995? and; (ii) what relief, if any, were the workmen entitled to? 4. A written statement was filed by the Union vide Annexure-P/5 wherein they took the plea that the company acted mala fide and also acted in a manner that amounted to unfair labour practice and accordingly prayed before the Tribunal that the declaration of the lock-out be declared to be illegal and also prayed for a direction that the Company should lift the lock out so that the workers can resume their duties and also for a direction that the Company be directed to pay the entire backwages to the workmen with consequential benefits etc. Thereafter, considering the cases of both the parties, the Industrial Tribunal, (Fourth Court) passed the Award holding that the lockout declared on 14.7.1995 was justified and that the workmen were not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. This award has been challenged by the Petitioner Union in this Writ Petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to various paragraphs of the Award and submitted that the Tribunal had proceeded on conjectures and surmises without considering the points brought out in their written arguments and that some of the reasons given by the Company for justifying the lock-out, such as loss of goodwill and reputation were no grounds for declaring the lock-out. 6. 6. Learned Counsel then submitted that it appears that the learned Tribunal had considered only Exhibit 14 series but the evidences that were brought on record on behalf of the Petitioner union vide Annexure-P/15 were not considered and not even discussed. Learned Counsel then pointed out that the cross-examination of OPW 1 namely Ashok Pal, went to show that the Company was getting the work of development and printing done from outside but this aspect was not discussed. On the basis of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, learned Counsel submits that the impugned Order cannot be said to be justified. 7. An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in which in Para-7, they have given details as to why the lock-out became necessary. These are therefore necessary to be reproduced and they read as follows:- (a) The genesis of the lock-out on 14th July, 1995 relates back to 1993. (b) During the first half of 1993 the work culture deteriorated to such an extent and continuous agitation assumed such a proportion, 3(three) Directors left the Company on 8th April, 1993. (c) Without any reason or rhyme, the workmen aided and abeted by their Union which changed colours 4 times indulged in indiscipline in various forms which resulted in deterioration of urgent services rendered by the company to the customers. This state of affairs continued. (d) The production Manager was subjected to humiliation and was abused in filthy language on 7th May, 1994. (e) The earlier union of Central Calcutta Photo Lab. Technicians and Employees’ Union was replaced by Barabazar Bywasayee Karmachari Samity and Calcutta Bywasayi Mazdoor Sanstha. The attention of the said Union was drawn to baseless allegations by letter dated 1st February, 1995. (f) By Office Order dated 15th February, 1995 attention of the workmen was drawn regarding irregular attendance and late attendance and earlier departure which resulted in huge loss of business and disruption in customer service. (g) On 14th March, 1995 One Sri Babu Mukherjee, Film Processor Operator threatened the Company’s Director Shri Kaushik Paul and asserted that he would not abide by the order of the management regarding the prescribed duty hours. (h) On 20th March, 1995 Sri Babu Mukherjee accompanied by several associates and outsiders came to the factory office at about 11.30 a.m. and took away the attendance register from Shri Kaushik Paul, Director and had put his initial over-writing the absent mark against his name. (h) On 20th March, 1995 Sri Babu Mukherjee accompanied by several associates and outsiders came to the factory office at about 11.30 a.m. and took away the attendance register from Shri Kaushik Paul, Director and had put his initial over-writing the absent mark against his name. (i) On 21st and 22nd March, 1995 also Sri Babu Mukherjee came for duty 10 a.m. although the prescribed duty hour was from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. as a result of continued acts of indiscipline the management was constrained to issue show cause notice on 23rd March, 1995 to Sri Babu Mukherjee. The said Babu Mukherjee was served with a charge-sheet on 8th May, 1995 for various acts of indiscipline including acts of disobedience to the lawful and reasonable order, neglect and dereliction of duty and acts subversive of discipline. (j) The workman went on committing various acts of indiscipline. Attention of Smt. Kalpana Das was drawn on 21st June, 1995 regarding irregularities in order booking sheet and also not booking order 3430 and also various other acts. (k) On 26th June, 1995 at about 5.30 p.m. Mr. Rajdeo Tiwari, General Secretary, Kolkata Babsahi Majdoor Sanastha along with others went to the Director and threatened him with physical assault, damaged the properties of the Company with a demand to withdraw the show cause notice issued to Smt. Kumkum Chowdhury and Smt. Kalpana Das for misappropriation of fund. As a result whereof an F.I.R. had to be lodged with the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station on 26th June, 1995. (l) On 11th July, 1995 at about 2.30 p.m. some unknown persons posing themselves as Union leaders and staff employees of the Company entered the Office premises and threatened the Executives and the Directors to the effect that they shall start damaging the property if their socalled demands are not fulfilled. (m) An F.I.R. was lodged with the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station. (n) On 11th July, 1995 at about 4 p.m. the locked door where Puzi Machine was kept was found broken and an F.I.R. was lodged on the same day to the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station. (m) An F.I.R. was lodged with the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station. (n) On 11th July, 1995 at about 4 p.m. the locked door where Puzi Machine was kept was found broken and an F.I.R. was lodged on the same day to the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station. (o) The said state of affairs continued and on 13th July, 1995 Shri R.D. Tiwari, Secretary of the Union named Calcutta Bywasayi Mazdoor Sanstha along with 10/12 unknown persons and other employees forcibly removed the job covers containing prints and negatives which are the properties of the customers. This would result in claims and demands from the customers and total loss of goodwill and reputation of the Company in the eye of public and the management was left with no other alternative but to declare a lock-out with effect from 14th July, 1995. Several notices were put up and workmen were repeatedly urged to refrain from illegal acts and activities but they turned a deaf ear to the appeal of the management. (p) It would appear that continued acts of indiscipline defiance of the authority, criminal intimidation, threat, threats of dire consequences, removal of customers’ property, sabotaging of workprocess and various other wrongful and overt acts left the management with no other alternative but to decide a lock-out on 14th July, 1995. It may be mentioned that even after declaration of lock-out various wrongful and overt acts have continued unabeted.” (Quoted) 8. On the basis of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the matter ultimately led to the present dispute being raised and the passing of the Award. Upon a perusal of the Notice of lock-out as contained in Annexure-P/3, being the Notice dated 14.7.1995, it is evident that the Notice itself stated that for the last few months, the workmen had been indulging in agitational activities and had been causing disruption in the functioning of the works in the premises of the Company so much so that a Proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had to be filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata (11th Court) for protection and safety of the management and properties of the Company and in spite of Notice, the Union neither appeared in the said Proceedings nor submitted any Cause explaining as to why the reliefs prayed for by the Management be not granted. The Notice also indicates that the employees, with the instigation and support of the Union, were not attending to their work and it had become impossible for the management to carry on with its business. It was also indicated that the management had observed irregularities in not depositing and/or accounting for the advances and/or the payments made by the customers against sales and that the employees were refusing to give explanations for not depositing and/or accounting for the payments received from the customers. Glass Panes of the Machine Room had been broken, the office furniture and equipment had been damaged and lastly, on 13.7.1995, at about 2 P.M. one R. D. Tewari, an outsider Union Leader, along with 10/12 unknown persons, and agitating employees forcibly removed the job covers containing prints and negatives which were properties of the customers. It was further indicated that for such forcible removal of the properties of the customers, the management would face claims and demands from them and therefore to avoid further loss of properties, customers properties, loss of goodwill and reputation of the Company, the management had decided to declare lock-out on and from 14.7.1995. 9. Thus, it is evident that it was not only loss of goodwill and reputation for which the lock-out was declared but it was also for other reasons mentioned in the lock-out Notice itself. 10. This Court also notices that substantial submissions have been made to the effect the Tribunal had not considered the non-payment of bonus incentives and had not discussed the Charter of Demands raised by the Union. In this context, this Court had the occasion to go through some of the photocopies of the Exhibits that were produced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Parties. One such Exhibit, being Exhibit D, is a letter dated 1.2.1995 written to the General Secretary of the Barabazar Vyavsai Karmachari Samiti wherein they have stated that they had already paid bonus etc. for the relevant years and which were calculated as per the Bonus Act and that there was nothing due. So far as incentives were concerned, it was stated that it will be considered when the occasion arises and that there should be appreciable increase in the volume of work and therefore they requested cooperation with an assurance that they will reciprocate if such cooperation was rendered. 11. So far as incentives were concerned, it was stated that it will be considered when the occasion arises and that there should be appreciable increase in the volume of work and therefore they requested cooperation with an assurance that they will reciprocate if such cooperation was rendered. 11. Added to this, is Exhibit E. This is an Office Order dated 15.2.1995 in which, while naming 13 employees, it was stated that these employees had been irregular in their attendance and that some of them attended duty at late hours and left earlier than the prescribed timing without permission of the Management and as a result, the reputation and business had suffered a great deal causing loss of business and affecting customer services. Accordingly, all these employees were directed to strictly observe duty hours failing which, the Management gave out, that they will deal strictly with them. 12. Exhibit G is the report dated 13.7.1995 (one day before declaration of the lock-out) informing the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station, that at about 2 P.M., some people of the Union along with one R.D. Tewari entered and forcibly took away prints of different customers along with three boxes where the jobs were kept. He also forced the Manager to make a List of the jobs taken away by him and forced him to sign thereon and he also countersigned on it. According to the Manager, the jobs taken away by Tiwari, if not returned to their customers, could create problems. The aforementioned documents both signed and countersigned, were produced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and this Court notices, that a substantially large number of jobs were taken away by R.D. Tewari. These documents have been enclosed along with Exhibit G and it was also exhibited before the Tribunal vide Exhibit H. 13. These are acts of gross insubordination. No industry or Management can prosper if such insubordination goes on and continues in the name of trade Union activities. 14. One Bubu Mukherjee is a subject matter of Exhibit J which is a letter dated 23.3.1995 issued by the Director to him. Bubu Mukherjee appears to be a Film Processor Operator. These are acts of gross insubordination. No industry or Management can prosper if such insubordination goes on and continues in the name of trade Union activities. 14. One Bubu Mukherjee is a subject matter of Exhibit J which is a letter dated 23.3.1995 issued by the Director to him. Bubu Mukherjee appears to be a Film Processor Operator. That letter shows that on 16th March 1995 (one month after the Office Order dated 15.2.1995 had been issued directing Bubu Mukherjee and other employees (13 in number) from attending duty on regular timings), he indulged in an act of indiscipline by threatening the Director, Kousik Pal that he would not obey the Order of the Management regarding his prescribed duty hours from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. and in future, he would determine his own duty hours. He came at about 10 A.M., although the duty hour for him started at 8 A.M., and naturally therefore, he was not allowed to attend and was marked absent. He then left the factory premises hurling abuses. Thereafter at about 11.30 A.M., he came back with several associates and outsiders and forcibly took away the Attendance Register from Kousik Pal and put his initials by overwriting the absent mark against his name. 15. On 21st and 22nd March, 1995 he again came to duty at 10 A.M. although duty hours were from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. When he was told that he would be marked absent, he again reacted similarly. Considering these acts on the part of the Bubu Mukherjee to be acts of grave misconduct, the Director issued a show-cause notice to him on 23rd March 1995 asking him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. This was Exhibit J. Thereafter by Exhibit K, a Charge-sheet was issued to Bubu Mukherjee. 16. The aforesaid facts would show that the Management, on their part, had done everything possible and in accordance with law to contain the agitationists and therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that if there was indiscipline, the Management could have issued Charge-sheets etc. is totally misconceived. 17. 16. The aforesaid facts would show that the Management, on their part, had done everything possible and in accordance with law to contain the agitationists and therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that if there was indiscipline, the Management could have issued Charge-sheets etc. is totally misconceived. 17. This Court further notices that on 8.5.1995, the Director sent a letter to the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station vide Exhibit L wherein he stated that some persons such as A. Pathak and his associates, Bubu Mukherjee, were committing serious breach of peace and tranquility and making illegal demonstrations not only in and around the Office premises but were also threatening to demonstrate in front of the house of Ashok Pal, the Director. 18. On 15.7.1995, the Executive Magistrate passed an Order vide Exhibit M wherein while perusing the Petition under Section 144 (2) filed by Mr. Ashok Pal, he issued notice to the Opposite Parties namely, Bubu Mukherjee, Samiran Ghosh, Somnath Kundu, A. Pathak and Rajdeo Tewari (Secretary and General Secretary of the Kolkata Vyavsai Majdoor Sanastha) asking them to show Cause as to why the prayers made in that Petition be not allowed. The Officer-incharge, Hare street Police Station was directed to enquire and submit a Report and also to ensure that there was no breach of peace and at the same time, the opposite party was also directed to abstain from creating disturbances. On 26.6.1995, the Director again had to take shelter of the Police by writing a letter to the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station vide Exhibit Q, wherein he stated that at 5.45 P.M. of the same day, R. Tewari, General Secretary as well as Somnath Kundu, Arindam Chowdhury along with 4 unknown persons came to the Office of K.L. Dutt & Company Pvt. Ltd., 18, N.S. Road and threatened Ashok Pal, the Director of Audio Visual Motion Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. who was the Petitioner under Section 144 Cr. P.C. with physical assault and damage to properties of the said Laboratory if the Charter of Demands were not fulfilled by 7 P.M. and the Show-cause Notices including the ones, which were issued to Mrs. K. Chowdhury and Mrs. K. Das for misappropriation of funds were not withdrawn. This was Exhibit Q before the Tribunal. 19. P.C. with physical assault and damage to properties of the said Laboratory if the Charter of Demands were not fulfilled by 7 P.M. and the Show-cause Notices including the ones, which were issued to Mrs. K. Chowdhury and Mrs. K. Das for misappropriation of funds were not withdrawn. This was Exhibit Q before the Tribunal. 19. Under the aforementioned circumstances, the Tribunal was to only answer the reference which was, as to whether the Management was justified in declaring the lockout ? Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Tribunal, while considering the various exhibits which have been referred to above, made a correct approach of the case when he proceeded to discuss the facts which justified the lockout. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope to reopen the matter or interfere with the Judgment of the Tribunal. This Court is satisfied that the Tribunal’s reasons and its dealing with the case has been proper and therefore, requires no interference. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. It is accordingly Dismissed but in the facts and circumstance of the Case, there shall be no Order as to Costs. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Certified copy of this Judgment, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.