ORDER
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by M/s. Aluminium Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner), challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in I.D. No. 1 of 1994, dated 31-8-1994.
2. A reference was made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in G.O.Rt. No. 2729 (Women’s Development, Child Welfare and Labour Department, dated 21-12-1993) to adjudicate the industrial dispute referred to hereunder:
“Whether the (1) Alind Employees Union (2) Alind Machinery Division Employees Union (3) Alind Contract Workers Union are justified in demanding wages for lock-out period from 3-5-1993 to 5-9-1993 from the management of Alluminium Industries Limited, Lingampally, Hyderabad? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
3. The dispute was referred to the Tribunal, and numbered as I.D. No. 1 of 1994.
4. The petitioner herein, a public limited company, engaged in manufacturing of cables, conductors and material handling machinery, had three Unions, representing its workmen. The petitioner introduced an incentive scheme, which required an incentive amount to be paid to the workmen by the 20th of each month. In view of the financial difficulties which the petitioner was going through, this incentive was being paid 2 or 3 days after the 20th of each month. For the month of June, 1993 the. Incentive was required to be paid by the 20th July. On 19-7-1993 the petitioner put up a notice on the notice board, notifying that the incentive amount would be paid as soon as funds were available. Again on 20-7-1993 another notice was displayed on the notice board to the effect that the amount would be paid on 23-7-1993. From 21 -7-1993 till 2-8-1993 the union workers entered the factory premises after punching their cards, but did not attend to their work. While it was the case of the workmen that the Supervisors did not allot work to them, the petitioner contended that the workmen resorted to tool-down strike after entering the factory premises to pressurize the petitioner-management to yield to their illegal demands.
5. The petitioner issued notices on 21st, 22nd and 26th of July, 1993, advising the striking workers to resume work immediately, while at the same time informing them that the management would have no option but to initiate disciplinary action in accordance with the Standing Orders. Personal letters were addressed to the petitioner’s unions on 26-7-1993, requesting them to resume work. The allegations in the notice given by the petitioner were denied by the unions. Another notice was issued by the petitioner on 31-7-1993 informing the workmen that the wages for the entire period of strike would not be paid to them and that an amount of 8 days wages would be deducted from their salaries. The petitioner declared a lockout from the midnight of 2-8-1993 on the ground that the workmen had stopped working in the factory. On receipt of lock-out notice, the unions represented to the management on 4-8-1993, informing that they had not gone on strike and they were willing to work. In spite of that notice, petitioner did not lift the lockout. After protracted negotiations, eventually an understanding was arrived at before the Joint Commissioner of Labour on 2-9-1993, as per which, the petitioner-management was required to lift the lock-out with effect from 6-9-1993 and the issue of wages for the lockout period was to be referred for adjudication. The lock-out was lifted on 6-9-1993 and the dispute with regard to payment of wages for the lock-out period i.e., from 3-8-1993 to 5-9-1993 was referred to the Tribunal in I.D. No. 1 of 1994.
6. Before the Tribunal two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Workmen and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management. Exs.W-1 to W-12 were marked as exhibits on behalf of the Workmen and Exs.M-1 to M-13 were marked as exhibits on behalf of the Management.
7. On the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following point for consideration.
“Whether the Workmen of the Company are entitled for wages for the period of lock-out i.e. from 3-8-1993 to 5-9-1993?”
8. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Management that the reference itself was not justified, holding that since the dispute that was referred for adjudication was whether the workmen were entitled for wages for the lock-out period from 3-8-1993 to 5-9-1993, it was necessary to decide whether the lockout declared by the management was justified or not. The Tribunal held that the eligibility of the workers to the wages for the lock-out period depended upon the justifiability of the lock-out declared by the Management and that adjudication regarding the justifiability of the lock-out was a matter incidental to the point in dispute referred to by the Government for adjudication.
9. The Tribunal held that the workers had resorted to tool-down strike, which also came within the definition of strike under Section 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the strike, resorted to by the workers, was illegal. While holding that once the strike resorted to by the workers is illegal the workers would not be entitled to wages during the period of illegal strike, the Tribunal held that that there was nothing on record to show that the management had taken any steps to avoid the lock-out, and that the management could have invoked the assistance of the conciliator or the Labour Officers in this regard. The Tribunal referred to Ex.W-2 dated 4-8-1993, wherein the petitioner’s union, on receipt of lock-out notice dated 2-8-1993, had categorically stated that the workmen were readily available to perform their duties, had requested the management to create a congenial atmosphere and to call for the unions to negotiate to reach an amicable settlement for the welfare of workmen and that they were eagerly looking forward for a reply from the management after fixing a date for the meeting. The Tribunal also held that there was nothing on record to show, in reply, that the management had made any effort in calling the petitioner’s union for negotiations across the table after fixing a date and time for the said meeting, and that there was no justification for continuing the lock-out for such a long period i.e., from 3-8-1993 to 5-9-1993. From Ex.W-3, the Tribunal noted that a meeting was held on 2-9-1993 between the management and the representatives of the workers in the chamber of Joint Commissioner of Labour, an understanding was reached and that the management agreed to lift the lock-out from 6-9-1993 and had also agreed that the issue of lock-out wages would be referred to adjudication, and in pursuance of the said agreement, the workers had resumed duty from 6-9-1993. Since it was conceded by the learned counsel for the Management that wages for strike period from 21-7-1993 to 2-8-1993 had been paid to the workers, the Tribunal did not go into the aspect regarding wages for the strike period and confined itself only with regard to payment of wages for the lock-out period. The Tribunal held that even if the declaration of lockout on 2-8-1993, on continuation of the illegal strike by the workers, was taken as legal, its continuation for such a long period could not be justified in the circumstances of the case. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pradip Lamp Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1969 (38) FJR 20 (SC), wherein it was held that even if a lock-out was not justified, if the workmen were also blameworthy and it was their conduct, which brought about the lockout, there should be apportionment of blame between the management and workmen. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, , wherein the Apex Court held that in a case where a strike was unjustified and was followed by a lock-out which had, because of its long duration, become unjustified, it was not proper for Industrial Tribunal to direct payment of the whole of wages for the period of lock-out. In cases where the strike is unjustified and the lock-out is justified, the workmen would not be entitled for any wages. Similarly when the strike is justified and the lockout is unjustified, the workmen would be entitled to the entire wages for the period of strike and lock-out. Where, however, a strike is unjustified and is followed by lock-out, which becomes unjustified, a case of apportionment of blame arises.
10. The Tribunal held that it was the conduct of the workers, which brought about the lock-out declared by the management and therefore the lock-out was justified in the beginning. The Tribunal, however, held that though the lock-out was legal in the initial stage when it was declared, it had become unjustified because of its long duration. The Tribunal further held that the conduct on the part of the workers as well as the management was responsible for the sorry state of affairs and for the workers unrest in the company and that both had to be blamed for the sorry state of affairs. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to apportion the blame at 50 per cent each on the part of the workers as well as the management, and held that the workers of the unions were entitled for 50 per cent of wages for the lock-out period from 3-8-1993 to 5-9-1993 from the management of the company.
11. It is against this award that the writ petition is filed by the petitioner-management. Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that while apportioning the blame at 50 per cent each and in holding that the union workers were entitled for 50 per cent of their wages for the lock-out period from 3-8-1993 to 5-9-1993 from the management, the Tribunal had failed to assign reasons as to why it had fixed 50% and not a different percentage for the purpose of apportionment of blame between the Management and the Workmen. The learned counsel, in addition to relying on judgments of the Supreme Court in Pradip Lamp Ltd. v. Their Workmen (supra) and India Marine Service Pvt Ltd. v. Their Workmen (supra), also referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court in Highways Group of Estates v. Industrial Tribunal, 1978 II-LLJ 251 (Madras), in support of his contention that the Tribunal ought to have given due consideration to the percentage in which the blame for continued lockout is required to be apportioned between the management and the workers.
12. As held by the Supreme Court in Pradip Lamp Ltd. v. Their Workmen (supra) and India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (supra) in cases where a lockout though legal during the initial stage had become illegal because of its prolonged continuance the extent to which blame thereof is to be apportioned between the management and the workmen is a matter which is required to be considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held both the management and the employees equally to blame for the prolonged continuance of the lock-out and therefore apportioned the blame at 50 per cent each. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has not given any reason for apportioning the blame at 50 per cent each between the management and workers. The Tribunal took note of the fact that soon after lock-out notice was issued on 2-8-1993, the unions had given a letter dated 4-8-1993 to the management, wherein they had expressed the readiness of the workmen to make themselves available to perform their duties and had requested the management to create a congenial atmosphere and call the unions for negotiations to enable an amicable settlement being arrived at. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had replied to the said letter dated 4-8-1993 or even as to the efforts which it had made to bring about an amicable solution to the dispute and to bring an end to the continued lockout. The Tribunal held that the management had made no efforts to call the unions for negotiations across the table and that there was no justification for continuing the lock-out for such a long period i.e. from 3-8-1993 to 5-9-1993. The Tribunal held that there was nothing on record to show that the management had taken any steps for avoiding such lock-out, that the management could have invoked the assistance of the conciliator or the Labour Officer in that regard and that even if the declaration of lock-out from 2-8-1993 was taken as legal, its continuation for such a long period could not be justified in the circumstances of the case.
13. In Highways Group of Estates, v. Industrial Tribunal(supra) the learned single Judge of Madras High Court held that the Tribunal has to consider the question of apportionment of blame as between the management and workmen, inasmuch as the Industrial Tribunal had disposed of the reference holding that the lock-out as regards the pluckers section was justified and in respect of others not justified and that the management was bound to pay the workmen other than pluckers section, wages for the entire period of lock-out. The Tribunal had not gone into the question regarding apportionment of blame between the management and the workers regarding continued lock-out and in such circumstances, the learned single Judge of Madras High Court held that the Tribunal was required to consider the question of apportionment of blame on the two parties and its effect on the amount of wages to be paid to the affected workmen. Such is not the case on hand. In the present case, the Tribunal has apportioned the blame between the management and workers at 50 per cent and has given reasons for such apportionment.
14. In matters relating to apportionment of blame between the management and the workers there can be no inflexible formula or rigid yardstick to determine the percentage of apportionment, and the extent of apportionment of blame would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over decisions of statutory Tribunals nor does it reappreciate the evidence on record. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in apportioning blame between the management and the workers at 50 per cent each cannot be considered as so irrational, perverse or unreasonable as to warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. As rightly pointed out by Sri V. Viswanatham, learned counsel for the workmen, the unions had, in reply to the lockout notice dated 2-8-1993, vide letter dated 4-8-1993, informed the petitioner management of their readiness to resume work, and since the petitioner-management did not choose to address any letter to the unions in reply thereto, the Tribunal would have been justified in awarding wages to the workmen from 5-8-1993 (the day next to the date on which the unions had expressed the readiness of workmen to attend work). The workers were denied wages of 50 percent for the period from 3-8-1993 to 5-9-1993 i.e., for 50 per cent of 33 days, which according to the learned counsel was much less than that they would have been entitled to if they had been granted wages from 5-8-1993. There is substantial force in this contention of Sri V. Viswanatham. However, this aspect need not detain this Court inasmuch as the unions have not chosen to challenge the award in I.D. No. 1 of 1994.
16. Be that as it may, the award of the Tribunal apportioning the blame at 50 per cent each on the management and the workmen is just and valid and the Tribunal has assigned reasons for arriving at such a conclusion. The award of the Tribunal in I.D. No. 1 of 1994, dated 31-8-1994, does not call for interference.
17. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
