“In the present case, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Siemens (India) Ltd. (supra) squarely applies. As stated hereinabove, it is not in dispute that there was a textile strike in Bombay which was declared illegal. It is a case of the workmen that they reported for work and they were not given work. The question was whether during this period, if the work was not given by the Company or if they were not employed by the Mills on the ground that they did not report for work, that they had abandoned their services or that their services stood terminated on account of closure, as defined under Section 3(8-A) are all the questions which are basically involving adjudication. Under the circumstances, Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act will not apply. Even in the case of Siemens (India), there was a lock-out. Just before the lock-out the workers offered themselves for work. They offered to give undertaking. They reported for work. They were denied work. They claimed wages on the basis that the contract of employment subsisted. In the present case also, it is not in dispute that there was a strike. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the strike was declared as illegal. In the present case, the strike was declared illegal in 1982 whereas the workmen offered themselves for work after almost two years. In the above circumstances, they are claiming compensation for inability to earn wages on account of the strike declared as illegal and therefore, in the above circumstances, they were, in effect, asking for compensation which warrants investigation into the question of apportionment of blame and, therefore, they were not entitled to wages on the basis that their contract of employment subsisted.” (pages 823-824)
