1. Heard Mr. S Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of award dated 19.09.2006, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Ref. Case No.4/2004. 3. Petitioner is the management of M/s. Warren Tea Limited. The Tea Estate in question i.e., Duamara Tea Estate (Tea Estate) belongs to the management. Respondent No.2 is the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, Doom Dooma Circle representing the interest of the staff employees engaged in the Tea Estate. 4. Case of the petitioner is that a violent situation arose in the Tea Estate on 17.09.2002 when the workers of the Tea Estate formed an unlawful assembly and illegally confined the managerial staff of the Tea Estate in the factory premises and later on in the residential premises of the Manager. The unlawful assembly also resorted to violence leading to injury to some of the managerial staff. The workers were demanding withdrawal of disciplinary action against one of the workers, Sri Laldas Karmakar. To ensure safety and security of the managerial staff and to prevent further breach of peace in the Tea Estate, management declared lockout in the Tea Estate w.e.f. 17.09.2002 by issuing lockout notice. It was mentioned in the lockout notice that during the period of lockout, no wage and ration would be payable or admissible. It appears that following negotiations between the management and the workers, a memorandum of settlement was arrived on 19.10.2002, whereafter, the lockout was withdrawn by the management w.e.f. 21.10.2002. The workers were required to submit undertakings of good conduct before the management. 5. During the lockout period, the staff employees were not paid wages like the workers. Respondent No.2 raised the issue of payment of wages to the staff employees of the Tea Estate during the lockout as they were in no way connected with the incident on 17.09.2002. Conciliation proceeding was initiated between the petitioner and respondent No.2, but it failed. Consequently, Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the appropriate Govt. i.e., the State Govt. in the Labour and Employment Department. 6. The appropriate Govt. issued notification dated 07.01.2004 referring the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal), Dibrugarh for adjudication of the following issues: - 1. Conciliation proceeding was initiated between the petitioner and respondent No.2, but it failed. Consequently, Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the appropriate Govt. i.e., the State Govt. in the Labour and Employment Department. 6. The appropriate Govt. issued notification dated 07.01.2004 referring the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal), Dibrugarh for adjudication of the following issues: - 1. Whether the management of Duamara Tea Estate are justified in deducting the wages of the staff employees of Duamara T.E. during the lockout of the garden from 17.09.2002 to 20.10.2002? 2. If not, whether the staff employee of Duamara T.E. are entitled to their normal wages and other fringe benefits for the said period or to any other relief in lieu thereof? 7. On receipt of the reference notification, Ref. Case No.4/2004 was registered by the Tribunal and notices were issued to both petitioner and respondent No.2. On receipt of notice petitioner as well as respondent No.2 submitted their written statement. Thereafter, the management side adduced evidence of one witness, management witness No.1, Sri Surajit Chanda whereas, respondent No. 2 adduced evidence of three witnesses, staff witness No.1, Sri Dalbir Singh, staff witness No.2 Sri Debajit Das and staff witness No.3, Sri Ratul Rajkhowa. 8. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 19.09.2006 holding that the management was not justified in deducting the wages of the staff employees during the period of lockout. It was further held that staff employees would be entitled to 60% of the wages during the period of lockout. 9. It is against this award that the present writ petition has been filed. 10. This Court by order dated 05.04.2007 had admitted the writ petition and had stayed the impugned award dated 19.09.2006. 11. Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that finding of the Tribunal is untenable inasmuch as validity of the lockout was not an issue before the Tribunal. If the lockout is legal and valid natural consequences would follow, which is that the staff and the workers would not be entitled to wages for the corresponding period by application of the principle of “no work no pay”. It is of little consequence whether staff employee had any role in the disturbances which led to declaration of lockout. If the lockout is legal and valid natural consequences would follow, which is that the staff and the workers would not be entitled to wages for the corresponding period by application of the principle of “no work no pay”. It is of little consequence whether staff employee had any role in the disturbances which led to declaration of lockout. Non-payment of wages is a consequent of the lockout being applied uniformly to the staff employees and the workers except those categories of employees who were allowed to function during the lockout period since their duties related to emergency services, like, water supply, hospital duties, etc. In such circumstances, when, admittedly, the staff employees did not work during the period of lockout, management was justified in not paying the wages during the said period, which was also notified earlier in the lockout notice. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: - 1. AIR 1960 SC 893 (Management of Kairbetta Estage, Kotagiri P.O. Vs. Rajamanickam). 2. (1997) 1 SCC 28 (Priya Laxmi Mills Ltd. Vs. Mazdoor Mahajan Mandal, Baroda). 12. Per contra, Ms. A Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the award of the Tribunal is just and proper. Tribunal had considered all aspects of the matter and passed a reasonable order awarding 60% of the back wages to the staff employees, who were in no way connected with the incident involving alleged violence perpetrated by the workers. She submits that the evidence on record clearly points to the fact that the staff employees were willing and eager to work during the period of lockout, but there was no one from the management side to allot any work to them. In such circumstances, denial of wages for the entire period of lockout to the staff employees would not only be unjust, but would also militate against the principles of fairness and industrial harmony. She further submits that for the purpose of maintaining industrial peace and harmony, the staff employees had accepted the award though it fell short of the expectations of the staff employees since only 60% of the wages have been awarded in their favour against the full amount due. 13. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. I have also perused the materials on record. 14. 13. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. I have also perused the materials on record. 14. Management in their written statement stated that a riotous situation was created in the Tea Estate on 17.09.2002 by the workers, which compelled the management to declare lockout. It was clearly stated in the lockout notice that no wages and ration would be paid or admissible during the lockout on the principle of “no work no pay”. Copy of the notice was also sent to the Secretary of respondent No.2. Ultimately, an agreement was reached between the management and the workers, pursuant to which, the lockout was lifted from 21.10.2002. Workers of the Tea Estate condemned the incident in writing and gave undertakings of good conduct. Lockout declared by the management was legal, valid and justified. 15. Respondent No.2 in its written statement stated that lockout was declared illegally and unjustly by the management. Salary of the staff employees during the period of lockout were illegally deducted by the management. Staff employees were in no way connected with the alleged incident on 17.09.2002. They were all residents of the Tea Estate and were all along available for their daily routine work. They had not struck work and were ever willing and ready to render their services to the Tea Estate, but management failed to allot work to them. In such a case, principle of “no work no pay” would not be applicable and, therefore, deduction of wages of the staff employees was illegal. The agreement which led to lifting of the lockout was entered into between the management and the workers and the staff employees were not at all a part of it. There were past precedents of wages being paid to the staff employees during the period of lockout in the Deamoolie Tea Estate belonging to the management. 16. The stand of the management was reiterated by its witness. He stated in his cross-examination that the staff employees were not present in the garden during the lockout period. But he stated that this fact was told to him by the Head Tea House Sri KK Chetia on 21.10.2002 when he had returned back to the garden. He had admitted that respondent No.2 represents the interest of the staff employees and that they were not connected with the incident on 17.09.2002. But he stated that this fact was told to him by the Head Tea House Sri KK Chetia on 21.10.2002 when he had returned back to the garden. He had admitted that respondent No.2 represents the interest of the staff employees and that they were not connected with the incident on 17.09.2002. No staff employees were connected with the incident on 17.09.2002 but workers represented by Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha (ACMS) were responsible. 17. The three witnesses of respondent No.2 stated that the staff employees were not paid their wages for the period of lockout i.e., from 17.09.2002 to 21.10.2002. However, witness No.1, Sri Dalbir Singh stated that during the lockout period the staff members were ready to work in the Tea Estate, but they could not work as the factory was not opened by the concerned executive. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the managerial staff had left the Tea Estate at about 4.00 p.m. on 17.09.2002. During the lockout period, the whole garden was closed, except the essential services like hospital, electricity etc. Nobody from the management was there to open the factory for the staff employees. He further stated that Sri KK Chetia, Head Tea House and Sri Debajit Das had received their wages in full during the lockout period though he could not say why the management had paid them their dues. Similar stand was taken by witness No.2, Sri Debajit Das, who admitted that he had received wages for the lockout period. He further stated that employees engaged in medical duties also got their wages. Likewise, the Head Tea House, Sri KK Chetia also got his wages for the lockout period. Other staff employees did not receive their wages. He in his cross-examination stated that staff of Deamoolie Tea Estate belonging to the same management were paid their wages during the period of lockout declared in that Tea Estate. This fact has been reiterated by witness No.3, Sri Ratul Rajkhowa in his evidence. 18. The above aspect of the matter was gone into by the Tribunal and it was held as follows: - “11. Now, from evidence on record, we find that the lock out was declared by the management on 17.09.02 and the same was lifted with effect from 21.10.02. There is no dispute on this point. 18. The above aspect of the matter was gone into by the Tribunal and it was held as follows: - “11. Now, from evidence on record, we find that the lock out was declared by the management on 17.09.02 and the same was lifted with effect from 21.10.02. There is no dispute on this point. From the evidence of MW 1, SW 1 and exhibits 2 and 3, it is seen that the workers who were involved in the incident of 17.9.02 in the management's tea estate, were the members of the garden unit of the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha (ACMS). But in this Reference, neither this union (ACMS) has been made a party nor the legality and justifiability of the lock out is in issue. 12. From the evidence of the management witness No.1, it is seen that some of the workers on 17.9.02 assaulted the managerial staff and feeling insecured, the managerial staff of the management had to leave the garden with the help of police, by declaring lock out in the tea estate and there was none in the managerial staff to look after the activities of the tea estate during the lockout period. The Sangha's witness No.1 has said in his evidence that the staff employees did not leave the garden during the period of lockout and that they were ready to work in the tea estate but they could not work for not opening the factory by the concerned Executive Staff. This SW 1 has further said that the Executives of the garden were absent from the tea estate from 17.9.02 to 21.2.02. The Sangha's second witness also said in his evidence that all the staff members were in the garden during the lockout period and that they were ready for their works. In his cross-examination, this SW 2 has said that none of the Executive staff was present in the garden to allot works to the workers. From the above, it is found that the staff employees were in the garden during the period of lockout but there was none on behalf of the management to allot work for them. On this point, the management witness No.1 has said that the staff members except the paramedical staff and the Head Tea House, left the garden out of fear. On this point, the management witness No.1 has said that the staff members except the paramedical staff and the Head Tea House, left the garden out of fear. In his cross-examination, this MW 1 has said that during the period of lockout, he was not personally knowing what was going in Duamara TE and that the staff members also left the garden during the lockout period was his reported knowledge from his employee Head Tea House Sri KK Chetia. But since the management did not examine Sri KK Chetia, this piece of evidence of MW 1 remained uncorroborated and as such the version of MW 1, that during the lockout period, the staff members also left the garden being unreliable, cannot be accepted. From the above discussion, it is found that the staff members of the Duamara TE did not leave the garden during the lockout period. It is natural that they did not work during the period of lockout as there was none on behalf of the management to allot work for them in the garden. Further, there is no evidence at all to show that the staff employees were involved in the incident dated 17.9.02 leading to the declaration of lockout on that day. Thus, I find some force in the demand of the workmen (staff employees). 13. Again, the Sangha's witness Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have said in their evidence that the staff members of the Deamoolie TE belonging to the same company received their wages during the period of lockout in their garden during May, 1997 without attending works. This shows that there is an instance of paying wages to its workers (staff employees) during the period of lockout in one of the tea estates of the management's company. But the management's plea is that the principle of “no work no pay” has to be applied when the staff employees did not work during the lockout period. On the applicability of the principle of “no work no pay”, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in para 17 of its decision in Nellimaria Jute Mills Karmika Sangthan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1995 Lab. On the applicability of the principle of “no work no pay”, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in para 17 of its decision in Nellimaria Jute Mills Karmika Sangthan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1995 Lab. I.C. 1041, as cited by the Sangha, has observed as - “In view of this clear legal position, the management of the Company cannot take a rigid stand that workmen are not entitled to pay because they did not work during the period of the lockout which has been declared as illegal. The principle of “no work no pay” would apply when the workmen strike work as clarified by the Supreme Court in Bank of India Vs. TS Kolawala (1990) 4 SCC 744 . That principle is not attracted straight way in the case of a lockout, especially when the lockout has been declared as illegal. On the facts and circumstances of the case in my hand and in view of the above observation of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, I find that the workmen (staff employees) represented by the Sangha are entitled to wages for the lockout period. The other decision of the case, Syndicate Bank and Anr. Vs. K. Umesh Nayak ( AIR 1995 SC 319 ) cited by the Sangha is not applicable to the present case. 14. From the evidence of the management witness (MW 1), it is seen that the workers abused, confined and assaulted the managerial staff on 17.9.02 and that feeling themselves insecured, the managerial staff left the tea estate on 17.9.02. The evidence of the Sangha's witness No.1 and 2 also shows that there was commotion in the garden on 17.9.02. The memorandum of settlement (Ext.2) between the management and the representatives of the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha which condemned the incident of assault and intimidation on the management staff, also speaks of the gravity of the incident that took place on 17.9.02 in the management's tea estate. Since the lockout declared on 17.9.02 continued till 20.10.02 (40 days), the management was also deprived of production during this period. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of industrial harmony, if the workmen are granted 60% (sixty percent) of wages of the period of lockout, I think, it will meet the ends of justice. 15. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of industrial harmony, if the workmen are granted 60% (sixty percent) of wages of the period of lockout, I think, it will meet the ends of justice. 15. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find and declare that the management of Duamara TE are not justified in deducting the wages of the staff employees of Duamara TE during the lockout of the garden from 17.9.02 to 20.10.02. The first issue is accordingly answered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the staff employees of Duamara TE are entitled to 60% (sixty percent) of the wages of the period of lockout. The second issue is also answered as above.” 19. The finding recorded at by the Tribunal is a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. It is a plausible and possible finding on the fact situation of the case. The said finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be based on no evidence or being vitiated by any perversity. 20. From the materials on record, it is evident that respondent No.2 or the staff employees were in no way connected with the incident, which led to declaration of lockout. Memorandum of settlement was signed between the management and the workers and not between the management and the staff employees. Undertakings of good conduct were sought for and obtained from the workers and not from the staff employees. Since respondent No.2 or the staff employees had not contributed in any manner to declaration of lockout, the principle of “no work no pay” may not be made applicable or extendable to them. A distinction may have to be drawn in the application of the said principle of “no work no pay”, in case of a strike and in case of a lockout. The evidence on record discloses that the staff employees were willing to work, but there was no one from the management side to allot them work. This is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also noticed that two of the staff employees were paid their dues during the lockout period. The evidence on record discloses that the staff employees were willing to work, but there was no one from the management side to allot them work. This is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also noticed that two of the staff employees were paid their dues during the lockout period. The version of the management witness that the staff employees were not present in the Tea Estate was not based on the personal knowledge of the said witness, but gathered from Sri KK Chetia, the Head of the Tea House, who was not presented as a witness by the management. Another finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal was that there were previous instances of making payment to staff employees in sister tea estate belonging to the management during lockout period. 21. In General Manager, Oil & National Gas Commission Vs. Oil & National Gas Commission Contractual Workers Union, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 275 , the Apex Court reiterated the time tested principle that the High Court would be justified in interfering with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal only if it is based on no evidence or if there is patent illegality in the award. It was reiterated that interference would be limited to a few cases i.e., in the case of patent illegality or perversity. Therefore, unless there is patent illegality or perversity in the finding of the Tribunal, interference by the High Court would not be justified. 22. The decisions cited by Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner basically deals with the concept of lockout vis-a-vis the concept of layoff. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in those two cases are not attracted. 23. On a thorough scrutiny of the award and other materials on record, Court is of the considered view that the impugned award of the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality. The decision of the Tribunal is just and fair considering the totality of the circumstances. Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, management should not grudge the award of payment of 60% of the wages during the lockout period to the staff employees, which has been accepted by the staff employees. The decision of the Tribunal is just and fair considering the totality of the circumstances. Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, management should not grudge the award of payment of 60% of the wages during the lockout period to the staff employees, which has been accepted by the staff employees. It will only enhance the standing of the management in the eyes of the staff employees and further the cause of industrial peace and harmony. Therefore, no interference is called for. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.