JUDGMENT: RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2 . The present writ petition has been filed by the Management of Assam Carbon Products Limited being aggrieved by the Award dated 03.05.2018, passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference Case No. 4 of 2017, whereby the learned Labour Court had taken a view that although the strike resorted to by the Assam Carbon Workers and Employees Union was illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 24(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was simultaneously held that the lockout declared by the management from 7.12.2010 to 8.3.2012, was also illegal. The learned Court had awarded 50% wages to be paid to the workers for the lockout period. 3. Assam Carbon Products Limited is a company engaged in the manufacture of carbon blocks, carbon brushes, and mechanical carbon. It has its factory and registered office at Birkuchi, Narangi, Guwahati, in the district of Kamrup Metro, Assam. The company is registered under the Companies Act, having its corporate office in Kolkata. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the year 2006, and in the early part of 2007, the production in the factory at Birkuchi had come down to an all- time low. On the suggestion of the Workers’ Union, a study was conducted to assess the capabilities of the machines and the productivity at the factory. A report was submitted by the National Productivity Council, which had conducted the study, and as per the report, the machines of the factory were stated to be under-utilized, and the production ought to have been double what was being produced at that date. 5 . It is the allegation in the writ petition that the workers had resorted to concerted go-slow methods, indiscipline, lawlessness and absenteeism at the instigation of the Union during that period. At the intervention of the Labour cum Conciliation Officer, who was approached by the Management of the company, a settlement between the Management and the Union was arrived at on 15.10.2007. By the aforesaid settlement, disputes pending till that date were taken to be resolved. 6. At the intervention of the Labour cum Conciliation Officer, who was approached by the Management of the company, a settlement between the Management and the Union was arrived at on 15.10.2007. By the aforesaid settlement, disputes pending till that date were taken to be resolved. 6. Despite the intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner on the agitational programs resorted to by the workers of the unit and despite the settlement having been arrived at, the workmen resorted to a lightning strike on and from 27.11.2007, which continued till 29.11.2007. The Management had to declare a lockout in the factory thereafter, with effect from 29.11.2007. After a series of conciliation parleys, a memorandum of settlement was arrived at between the Management and the Assam Carbon Staff and Workers Union before the Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer, Assam, on 23.07.2008, wherein it was agreed that the wages for the period of the strike and the lockout would be governed by the principle of “No Work No Pay”. In view of the settlement, the lockout was lifted on 24.07.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that although the respondent-Union had initially participated in the conciliatory proceedings, they refused to be a party to the settlement dated 23.07.2008. 7. The present Union had filed WP(C) 3666/2008 challenging the tripartite settlement dated 23.07.2008, and this Court, by the order dated 27.08.2008, had directed that any undertaking that may be executed or signed by the members of the petitioner-Union as a condition precedent for joining of services would be without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition. WP(C) 3666/2008 was dismissed as infructuous by this Court through its order dated 14.07.2014. 8. In the meantime, the dispute with regard to the aforesaid strike and lockout raised by the respondent-Union was referred to the learned Labour Court, which came to be registered as Reference Case No. 14 of 2008. The learned Labour Court by award dated 26.06.2014 held the lockout to be justified, and relief was refused to the Union. The learned Labour Court had held the tripartite settlement dated 23.07.2008 to have a binding effect on the Union. 9. During the pendency of the Reference Case No. 14/2008, on 16.07.2009, a section of the workers of the factory created obstructions in routine work. The learned Labour Court had held the tripartite settlement dated 23.07.2008 to have a binding effect on the Union. 9. During the pendency of the Reference Case No. 14/2008, on 16.07.2009, a section of the workers of the factory created obstructions in routine work. A few workers resorted to violence and assault on the officers of the Management, leading to loss and damage of the property of the company and also to the personnel attending the factory premises. At least two of the officers who were present at the scene of the disturbance were assaulted and injured. It is the case of the petitioner that the Management had informed the police, and with the intervention of a Magistrate and the Police, the violent situation was subdued. The Management had informed the Labour Commissioner, Government of Assam, through a letter dated 15.07.2009 regarding the above incident and had prayed for appropriate intervention on 16.07.2009. A general notice was issued by the Management requesting all employees to maintain discipline and normalcy of production. A few of the workers who were directly involved in the incident of violence and disturbance were placed under suspension, and after disciplinary proceedings, were dismissed from their services. 10. The writ petition claims that thereafter the Management had informed the Officer-in-Charge of the Chandmari Police Station vide letter dated 20.07.2009 for increasing police patrol in the said area, and another notice dated 20.07.2009 had also been issued requesting all workmen to restore normalcy of operation and to abide by the terms of the tripartite settlement dated 23.07.2008. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the workers continued another concerted go-slow tactic. By a general notice dated 08.08.2009, the Management had to warn all concerned workmen to stop go-slow tactics and advised them to restore normalcy of operation, to maintain discipline and harmonious industrial relations. When the workmen did not respond favorably, the Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup Metro, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kamrup Metro and the Officer-in-Charge of the Chandmari Police Station were informed of the events, with requests for proper security to the Management officials and the property at the factory. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that another general notice dated 31.08.2009 was issued by the Management informing that the financial position of the company was being severely affected due to the continuous go-slow attitude of the workers. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that another general notice dated 31.08.2009 was issued by the Management informing that the financial position of the company was being severely affected due to the continuous go-slow attitude of the workers. Officials of the company were being threatened over the phone and were also assaulted. When the workers, as per the writ petitioner, continued to instigate indiscipline, go-slow tactics and resorted to an agitational approach, disrupting the industrial environment, the Management requested the concerned Union by letter dated 13.10.2009 to come forward for discussion. By a letter dated 15.10.2009, the concerned Union informed the Management that they would go for a tool/pen down strike for four hours on 16.10.2009. Efforts to bring about the resolution did not prove fruitful. 13. The Union, by the letter dated 05.11.2009, informed the Management of the decision to go for mass casual leave w.e.f. 09.11.2009, and then another decision to go for a tool/pen down strike on 13.11.2009 for four hours was also conveyed. A general notice was issued by the Management on 27.11.2009 informing that workers who did not work and resorted to a tool/pen down strike on 13.11.2009, 19.11.2009 and recusal from work on 25.11.2009 would be liable to “proportionate pay-cut” for work not done. A general notice dated 28.04.2010 was issued by the Management again directing the workers to desist from concerted go-slow and cessation of work, failing which, it was announced that the Management would have no other option but to take appropriate action as deemed fit. 14. Despite the above, the concerned Union resorted to an agitational program on 06.05.2010 in front of the establishment of the Management. On 04.12.2010, the concerned Union again created a violent situation in front of the main gate, refusing entry to Management officials and the non-agitating workmen into the factory. A serious threat to the law and order situation and obstruction to the entry of vehicles into the factory was created. A section of the workers who were members of the Assam Carbon Staff and Workers Union, and some of the Management Staff, informed the Management that they were restrained by other workers when they were coming to the factory to perform their duties. An FIR had also been lodged by the driver of the staff bus and its owner regarding the incidents. 15. An FIR had also been lodged by the driver of the staff bus and its owner regarding the incidents. 15. When it became impossible to continue the normal functioning of the factory and, in view of the illegal strike resorted to by some of the workmen at the instigation of the Union, the Management had to declare a lockout of the factory in the establishment w.e.f. 11.30 PM on 07.12.2010 for the protection of its men and machinery. This lockout continued, according to the petitioner, due to the adamant and militant attitude of the Union. However, a tripartite settlement was arrived at in the conciliation proceedings held on 21.02.2012 between the Management, the Assam Carbon Staff and Workers Union and the Assam Carbon Workers and Employees Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer, Guwahati. In view of the said settlement, the Management lifted the lockout w.e.f. 09.03.2012. Pursuant to the lockout being lifted, several of the workers who had resorted to physical violence, gherao, and go-slow tactics faced disciplinary proceedings and were dismissed from service, and in most cases, the dismissal orders were upheld by the learned Labour Court when approached by the aggrieved terminated workmen. 16. After a lapse of more than 7 (seven) years of the lockout being brought into effect on 07.02.2010, and the same having been lifted on 09.03.2012, the appropriate government under the Industrial Dispute Act referred the following disputes to be adjudicated by the learned Labour Court by Notification No. GLR.155/2016/45 dated 11.07.2017: I. Whether the Management of Assam Carbon Products Limited was justified in declaring lockout of their factory and office at Birkuchi, Guwahati-26 for the period from 7/12/2010 to 8/3/2012? II. If not, whether the workmen were entitled to leave against the said lockout. 17. Reference Case No. 4 of 2017 was accordingly registered in the Labour Court of Assam, Guwahati, and both the parties, i.e., the Management and the Workers Union, appeared before the Labour Court. The Management had contested the case on merit by way of filing the written statement. The Management examined two witnesses and a series of documents to justify the stand that the members of the Union would not be entitled to claim wages for the lockout period on the principles of No Work No Pay. The Management had contested the case on merit by way of filing the written statement. The Management examined two witnesses and a series of documents to justify the stand that the members of the Union would not be entitled to claim wages for the lockout period on the principles of No Work No Pay. It was also contended that since the Management was compelled to declare a lockout due to the unlawful act of the workmen and the Union, the workers would not be entitled to any wages for the period of the lockout. 18 . The learned Labour Court heard arguments on the 18th of April, 2018, and delivered the judgment on 03.05.2018. 19. The Tribunal observed in its order that the memorandum of settlement exhibited during the proceedings contained a clause that the matter of wages for the lockout period from 07.12.2010 to 08/3/2012 would be referred for adjudication to the appropriate Court. The Learned Labour Court observed that the management, although aware of this condition, did not move before the Labour Court or the Government of Assam to get the matter referred to the Labour Court without delay. It was observed that there was no initiative from the side of the management to settle the matter with the help of the workers' union. The learned Labour Court did not find substance in the submission on behalf of the management that the referred matter was a stale dispute since the lockdown had been imposed in the year 2012, and the matter was referred to the Court in the year 2017 by the Government of Assam. 20 . The learned Labour Court had observed that the agitational programs were started by the union from 23.05.2009 and the same ended on 04.12.2010. The union did not ask for a solution from the legal forum, and they indulged in agitational activities. In such a view of the matter, the learned Labour Court opined that the strike was unreasonable. It was held that the strike was considered unjustified if it was found that it was unreasonable and perverse. The learned Labour Court had also formed an opinion that the management did not follow up on the issues raised by the letter dated 17.07.2009, addressed to the Labour Commissioner, asking for appropriate action. It was held that the strike was considered unjustified if it was found that it was unreasonable and perverse. The learned Labour Court had also formed an opinion that the management did not follow up on the issues raised by the letter dated 17.07.2009, addressed to the Labour Commissioner, asking for appropriate action. The learned Labour Court had also formed the opinion that the union had advanced materials before the Court, which indicated that the management had not paid any attention to the demands of the workers. It had not come before the Court that the management had taken an interest in solving the difference between the agitating workers and the management by holding a meeting. The learned Labour Court had observed that the management had not advanced any evidence justifying a suspension of sixteen workers. The management did not take any effective steps to check the agitational programs, and therefore, it appeared that the management did not want to settle the issues raised by the workers for the greater interest of the company. The learned Labour Court was of the opinion that the management seated in Kolkata wanted to get rid of the problems arising out of the agitating employees with the help of the police and the District Administration. 21 . In its conclusions, the learned Labour Court observed that when a strike is unjustified, and a lockout is also unjustified, the apportionment of blame would arise as held in the Statements Limited v. their Workmen reported in (1976), 2 SCC 223. The learned Labour Court opined that both sides were equally responsible for not getting an early disposal of the deadlock between the sides, and therefore, the share of blame would be in equal proportion. The workers were held to be entitled to fifty percent of the back wages for the aforesaid lockout period. It is this award of the Labour Court that the management has assailed. 22. Mr. P. K Tiwari, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the management, has submitted that it is an admitted position on record that the workers' union, namely the Assam Carbon Workers and Employees Union, had resorted to agitational programs from 2007 and due to such agitational programs, a lockout had been declared in the factory with effect from 29.11.2007. 22. Mr. P. K Tiwari, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the management, has submitted that it is an admitted position on record that the workers' union, namely the Assam Carbon Workers and Employees Union, had resorted to agitational programs from 2007 and due to such agitational programs, a lockout had been declared in the factory with effect from 29.11.2007. The lockout was lifted on 24.07.2008 after a memorandum of settlement had been arrived between the Management and the Assam Carbon Staff and Workers Union before the Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer, Assam, on 23.07.2008. 23. It is an admitted position on record that although the respondent union in this present writ petition had initially participated in conciliatory proceedings, they had refused to be a party to the settlement between on 23.07.2008. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the challenge made to the settlement dated 23.07.2008 before this Court by the respondent union through WP(C)/3666/2008 had been closed as infructuous since the respondent union had also approached the learned Labour Court through reference Case No. 14/2008, it is also a matter of record, that by award dated 26.06.2014 the lockout initiated on 29.11.2007 was held to be justified and relief was refused to the respondent union. The learned Labour Court had held the tripartite MOS dated 23.07.2008 to have a binding effect on the union. 24. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that there is enough material on record to show that the claim of the management, that a section of the workers of the factory belonging to the respondent union had created obstruction in routine work and had also led to the creation of a situation of violence and assault on the officers of the management was true and correct. The respondent union, in their evidence before the learned Labour Court, had admitted to resorting to agitational programs. In fact, this aspect of the matter has also been taken into account by the learned Labour Court when it came to a conclusion that the strike resorted to by the workers was unjustified and illegal. 25 . The learned Labour Court had come to specific findings that the workmen could have waited for some time after a conciliation effort failed before resorting to a strike, and in the meantime, workers could have asked the Government to make a reference. 25 . The learned Labour Court had come to specific findings that the workmen could have waited for some time after a conciliation effort failed before resorting to a strike, and in the meantime, workers could have asked the Government to make a reference. The learned Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the union did not ask for a solution from any legal forum, and they had indulged in agitational activities. 26. Mr. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel submits that when the finding of the Labour Court was to the effect that the respondent union had been resorting to uncalled for agitation, lightning strike and had resorted to the aforesaid programs, the necessary corollary should have been that the management was justified in declaring a lockout since the entire situation had become unpredictable, and that there was immediate threat of loss of property and harm to the officials and the workers who were not participating in the agitational program. 27. The learned counsel for the management has submitted that when a strike is unjustified, and a lockout is a fallout of such an unjustified strike, the lockout cannot be held to be unjustified. The learned Senior counsel has drawn attention of this court to the evidence led by the respondent union where it was admitted that though the learned Labour Court in the earlier round of litigation had held the tripartite agreement arrived at in the year 2008 to be binding upon the respondent union also, the witness on behalf of the union had admitted that the union did not follow the terms and conditions laid down in the tripartite settlement dated 23.07.2008. The learned Senior counsel had impressed upon this court that the continuous agitational programs adopted by the respondent union on and from the 23rd of May, 2009 which programs included slogan shouting, concerted go-slow, blockade of dispatch of semi-finished material and assault on the management staff, unlawful assembly, tool/pen-down strikes for 4 hours on different dates, availing mass casual leave on more than one occasions, resorting to karmavirati, non-cooperation with the management and finally, creating violent situations in front of the main gate of the factory and not allowing any management officials and workmen to enter into the factory, were the incidents which demonstrate the immediate threat perception in the mind of the management for which a lockout of the factory had to be declared on the 7th of December, 2010. 28. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the lockout was unjustified was not in accordance with the evidence available on record and, therefore, the award, which apportioned equal blame on the management for the lockout, is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 29. Mr. Dasgupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent union, has submitted that the respondent union was not a party to the tripartite memorandum of settlement entered into in the year 2008. The respondent union had been agitating lawfully and peacefully for compliance with their charter of demands, which was placed before the management, and it was only when the management refused to entertain any demand of the workers that minor agitational programs had been resorted to. 30. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the worker union has not raised any grievance against the finding that the strike resorted to by the union was unjustified, and the same is not an issue before this court in this petition. However, the learned Senior counsel has supported the finding of the learned Labour Court that the management did not make any attempt to bring about a settlement by calling for a meeting with the union and has also supported the finding of the learned Labour Court that the management had rather sought the assistance of the District Administration and the police instead of resolving the problems in a joint sitting with the union executives. 31 . 31 . The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there is no fault in the finding of the learned Labour Court that the management had resorted to a lockout without trying to find a possible solution to the impasse, through legal forums. He has further submitted that the management did not refer the issue of the claim for back wages to the Government to get the matter referred to the Labour Court, and there was no initiative from the side of the management to settle the matter with the help of the workers' union. He has therefore prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 32 . Both learned Senior counsels have placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court: I. The Statesman Limited v. their Workmen, reported in ( 1976) 2 SCC 223 II. Syndicate Bank v. K Umesh Nair, reported in ( 1994) 5 SCC 57 Reliance was placed on these judgments to elaborate the distinction between a legal and justified lockout, and a legal but yet unjustified lockout, and the manner in which apportionment of blame could be made to determine the issue of back wages to workers, in case of strikes resorted to by the workmen and a lockout resorted to by the management. 33. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras delivered in the Highways Group of Estates vs. Industrial Tribunal and others, reported in 1977 SCC Online Mad 90, to emphasize that a lockout declared by the management would be justified when there is an apprehension of violence and loss of property. He had also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hal Employees Union vs. Presiding Officer and another , reported in (1994) 4 SCC 223, to submit that wages during a strike period would be payable only if the strike is both legal and justified, but not payable if the strike is legal but not justified or justified but illegal. He has submitted that once the strike has been held by the learned Labour Court to be unjustified, the consequent lockout cannot be termed illegal. He has submitted that once the strike has been held by the learned Labour Court to be unjustified, the consequent lockout cannot be termed illegal. He has submitted that in such circumstances, the finding of the learned Court, that the lockout resorted to by the management as a consequence of the unjustified strike and on the face of the apprehension of immediate threat of violence and loss of property, would require the interference of this Court. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay rendered in the case of Metal Rolling Works Pvt. Ltd. vs General Labour Union and another, reported in [2000] 0 Supreme (Bom) 545, where at paragraph 9, the Court had held as follows: “9. Having considered the above submissions, I am of the view that it would not be unnecessary to go into the wider question agitated by the petitioner that suspension of the factory operation the and consequential lock out by the petitioner cannot be said to be a lock out as defined in section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my view, the petitioner is bound to succeed on the submission that from the evidence on record it would be more than evident that the suspension of the factory operations as well as the lock out was forced upon the petitioner company by the workmen and as such neither the lock out nor the subsequent prolongation of restarting factory even after the Government order dated 16-2-1985 till 28-2-1985 cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. If the petitioner is right in this submission then the question of petitioner being liable to pay compensation equivalent to wages for the said period would be wholly unwarranted and without authority of law. Before I proceed to discuss on this aspect, it would be relevant to notice that the Tribunal has positively recorded that the petitioner company repeatedly gave notices and warnings to the workmen for not to resort to illegal and unfair activities, but in spite of several notices including the injunction order of the Court, the workmen continued to indulge in unfair labour practices. The Tribunal has therefore held that the petitioner was justified in giving notice of lock out and resorting to lock out and suspension of factory operations. The Tribunal has therefore held that the petitioner was justified in giving notice of lock out and resorting to lock out and suspension of factory operations. The Tribunal has also held that notices were displayed from time to time requesting the workmen to stop the various unfair trade practices but had no effect which forced the petitioner company to resort to suspension of work and give notice of lock out. The Tribunal has also positively held that from the materials on record it cannot be said that prolongation of the lock out was unjustified or improper and that the petitioner company cannot be blamed for not lifting the lock out as the workmen had never approached the petitioner inspite of appeal by the petitioner for lifting the lock out. The Tribunal although referred to the decision reported in 1971(1) L.L.J. 77 while accepting the petitioner's contention that the petitioner was not responsible for prolongation of the lock out in that the workmen had at no point of time approached the petitioner company for lifting the lock out for assuring the company of normal working, however, while applying the said principle with regard to the period between 16-2- 1985 to 28-2-1985 the approach of the Tribunal has been totally different and inconsistent. Although the Tribunal has rightly held in so many words that the petitioner company was entitled to exclude some days required for making arrangement for starting the factory again, however, the fact that the petitioner was intently occupied in negotiating with the workmen between 16-2-1985 and 28-2- 1985 for working out the modalities of restarting the factory, has been clearly overlooked. The Tribunal has completely erred in assuming that after the order came to be passed by the State Government on 16-2-1985 the petitioner company did not take any initiative to reopen the factory until the workmen contacted the petitioner company and requested to permit them to enter the factory premises, which decision was taken by the petitioner only on 28-2-1985. The said approach of the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable as it clearly overlooks the fact that the petitioner company was forced to suspend the operation of the factory and resort to lock out on account of the illegal and unfair activities of the workmen. The said approach of the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable as it clearly overlooks the fact that the petitioner company was forced to suspend the operation of the factory and resort to lock out on account of the illegal and unfair activities of the workmen. Moreover, undisputedly, the workmen never approached the petitioner company to remove the lock out nor gave assurance to the petitioner that they would maintain discipline and give normal production which was the sine qua non for restarting the company. In my view, the petitioner is right in contending that it was not bound to immediately act upon the order passed by the State Government, purported to be under section 10(3) of the Act dated 16-2-1985, particularly when the said order does not reveal as to what circumstances weighed with the State Government to unilaterally direct the petitioner to restart the operation of the factory; and in any case until the petitioner was satisfied with the assurance of the workmen that they would maintain discipline and give normal production. On the other hand there is ample material on record to show that management of the petitioner had reason to entertain apprehension that the workmen would create untoward situation, on account of the past attitude of the workmen. In the circumstances, unless the workmen were to give an express undertaking and assurance that they would maintain discipline and would give normal production, the question of restarting the factory was totally ruled out. In any case neither the order passed by State Government dated 16-2-1985 indicate nor there is any other material to indicate that the workmen gave such assurance to the petitioner of maintaining the discipline and good conduct and normal production until by letter of the President of 1st respondent union dated 22-2- 1985. It is also matter of record that on receipt of the said letter, the petitioner immediately responded positively and started interacting with the 1st respondent union and it is only when the 1st respondent union gave assurance to the satisfaction of the petitioner that the workmen would maintain discipline and good conduct and give normal production, immediately thereafter the petitioner took a decision to restart the factory on 28-2-1985. In other words, from 16-2-1985 till the petitioner company took decision to lift the lock out on 28-2-1985, deliberations were held between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and when all the issues were completely sorted out between them inter se the decision to start the factory was taken. In my view, the time spent from 16- 2-1985 till 28-2-1985 will therefore have to be treated as time required for making arrangement for starting the factory. Inasmuch as deliberations and interaction between the petitioner and its workmen was absolutely necessary for ensuring peaceful working. In my view, there is no qualitative difference between time spent for reorganizing the factory premises viz. oiling, cleaning of machinery for normal resumption of work on account of long drawn suspension of work since December 1983 which was for a period of more than one year, and the time spent for interaction between the management of the petitioner and office bearers of the respondent company for working out the modalities of lifting the lock out and making the factory operational. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the petitioner was liable to pay compensation equivalent to wages to the workmen for the period between 16-2-1985 till 28-2-1985 is unsustainable.” 34. The submissions made by the learned senior counsels have received my consideration, and I have also perused the records of the learned Labour Court. The applicability of the citations relied upon by the parties has also been considered. 35. From the records, it is seen that there is no dispute to the fact that the respondent workers' union had resorted to agitational programs during the year 2007, and that the lockout resorted to by the management due to such agitational programs had been held by the learned Labour Court to be justified and that the workers had been denied wages for the period of the lockout. The lockout was lifted when the Memorandum of Settlement had been arrived at. Although the respondent union had submitted that it was not a party to the memorandum of settlement, the learned Labour Court and, as submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, had held the terms of the memorandum to be binding upon the respondent union also. 36. Although the respondent union had submitted that it was not a party to the memorandum of settlement, the learned Labour Court and, as submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, had held the terms of the memorandum to be binding upon the respondent union also. 36. The witness on behalf of the respondent union in the proceedings which are the subject matter of this petition, has admitted that the respondent union did not abide by the terms of the memorandum of settlement, even though the terms were held binding upon the respondent union also. The respondent union did not deny the assertion of the management that they had resorted to repeated agitational programmes through the period from 2009 onwards, and that such agitational programmes had turned violent at times. There was no denial on the part of the respondent union that the agitation had taken the shape of an illegal strike on 4.12.2010, when the workmen had barred the entry of management employees and other workmen, who were eager to work, from entering the factory premises. 37. In view of the above state of affairs, I am of the considered view that the lockout declared by the management was a consequence of the illegal and unjustified strike carried out by the respondent union; therefore, the lockout was neither illegal nor unjustified. The finding of the learned Labour Court that the management had failed to address the grievance of the respondent union cannot find approval since the learned Labour court did not arrive at a finding that the respondent union had raised demands in a legal and lawful manner and that the management had even then ignored such demands. The nature of the demands allegedly made by the respondent union in the alleged Charter of Demands was not delved into by the learned Labour Court to determine whether such alleged demands deserved the attention of the management. It was neither the case of the respondent union nor the finding of the learned Labour Court that the continuance of the lockout declared on 7-12-2010 was unjustified in any manner. 38. It was neither the case of the respondent union nor the finding of the learned Labour Court that the continuance of the lockout declared on 7-12-2010 was unjustified in any manner. 38. I am also of the considered view that the learned Labour Court also failed to appropriately address the plea of the management that the subject matter of the reference had turned stale since back wages for the period from 7.10.2010 to 8.3.2012 had been raised in the year 2017. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , has held that a belated service-related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where an application to the Administrative Tribunal seeks remedy). The issue in that case also related to arrears of pay, and the relief was directed to be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the claim. In the present case, the claim of the respondent union came to be filed after a five-year delay and even in that view of the matter, the learned Labour Court could not have granted relief in the manner it was done. 39. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned directions of the learned Labour Court in apportioning the blame between the contesting parties and granting 50% of the wages for the period from 7.12.2010 to 8.3.2012 in favour of the respondent union are set aside. 40. No order as to costs.