The case is to come up for hearing on April 30. The company has declared a lock-out at the Delhi office against which the employees' union raised an industrial dispute before the labour commissioner who prohibited the lockout while referring the issue of legality of the lockout and payment of wages for the lockout period to the Industrial Tribunal.The Mumbai office of the company is also under lockout.

Modistone has prayed for the stay of the prohibitory order passed on March 11 and also challenged the reference to the tribunal. The management in its writ petition has alleged that workmen are resorting to disruptive activities like gheraoing the company executives and forcing them to provide confidential information and threatening and preventing scrap contractors from loading tyres, tubes and flaps.

The managementhas also submitted that the prohibitory order is bad in law as its pleadings were not taken into consideration and the order issued arbitrarily.

It has also pleaded that the lockout at the Delhi office was the result of the lockout at the central office and factory in Mumbai. The union in its rejoinder has said that there is no cause for a lockout as there is no misconduct on the part of the employees. It has also stated that the Delhi office is independent of the Mumbai office and there is no functional integerality between the two offices as the Delhi district office has functional autonomy.

The union has contended that under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, there can be no strike or lock-out during the pendancy of proceedings before conciliation, labour commissioner, tribunal or national tribunal.

Since various industrial disputes pertaining to entitlement for increase in leave travel concession, medical assistance and education allowance as well as reduction in the rate of variabledearness allowance in respect of Delhi office are pending before the industrial tribunal of Delhi since 1992 and 1994, there can neither be a strike nor a lockout, the union has argued.