F.L.REBELLO,J. - (1.) RULE . Heard forthwith. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 8th August, 2004 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 396 of 1997 by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. By that order the learned Industrial Court was pleased to partly allow the complaint filed by the Respondent herein. The learned Industrial Court was pleased to hold that the Petitioners were guilty of engaging in unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, and were further directed to cease and desist from the same. The Petitioners were also directed to revise the basic wages of the employees mentioned in the order by first giving the appropriate fitment and then the increment in the revised scale as per the settlement dated 5th July, 1995 with effect from 1st January, 1994.
(2.) THE Petitioners had entered into a settlement with the Tata Consulting Engineers Employees Union dated 5th July, 1995. These benefits were agreed to be extended to such of the workmen who gave declaration in form set out in Exhibit "B" to the Settlement. Members of Respondent No. I did not sign the declaration as set out in Exhibit "B" to the settlement. Consequent the eon they were not extended the benefits. The settlement provided for fitment. The relevant clause reads as under: - " FITMENT: 1. Those workmen whose basic wage as of 1.1.1994 is in the correct step of the revised basic scale will be fitted at the same basic wage. 2. Those workmen whose basic wage as of 1.1.1994 is not in the step of the revised basic wage due to partial increment or otherwise, will be fitted at the next basic wage in the revised scale. Those workmen who have not got any increment as of 1.1.94 because of the top of the grade policy, will be fitted into the revised scale at the appropriate step and will be given one increment." A reference being Reference IT No. 49 of 1986 was pending before the Industrial Court. The Respondent No. 1 therein made an application that the benefits of the settlement be granted in favour of the members of the Respondent No.1. An interim award came to be passed on 19th September, 1996 directing the Company to extend the benefits of the 9th September, 1996 settlement to the member workmen of the Respondent No.1 Union. The Petitioners aggrieved by the said interim award challenged the same before this Court in Writ Petition No. 356 of 1997. A learned Judge of this Court considering the pendency of the reference and as the interim award was purely an interim arrangement was pleased to dismiss the petition. The Petitioners being aggrieved preferred an appeal to the Appellate Bench of this Court in Appeal No. 552 of 1997. That Appeal came to be disposed of by order dated 9th July, 1997. The following paragraph of the order needs to be reproduced: - "Mr. Naik makes a statement that the company will implement the order of the Tribunal within four weeks from today. In view of the statement made by Mr. Naik, Mr. Deshmukh, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 agrees to withdraw the proceedings initiated on account of non -implementation of the order of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has expedited the hearing of the Reference. Mr. Naik tenders a list of six witnesses, who would be examined on behalf of the company. The Tribunal shall complete the recording of evidence of those witnesses within three months from today and, thereafter, dispose of the Reference expeditiously within the time frame fixed by the Single Judge." Subsequent to the interim award of the Industrial Court the Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint on 29th April, 1997. The grievance in the complaint was that the Petitioners herein by not implementing the Award of the Industrial Tribunal had committed an act of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act.
(3.) THE Petitioners pursuant to the disposal of the Appeal by this Court on 7th October, 1997 moved an application for dismissal of the complaint considering the order passed in Writ Petition No. 552 of 1997. The Respondent No. 1 to that filed a reply on 25th February, 1999 setting out therein that the Petitioner herein had filed a pursis that they had implemented faithfully and fully the Award Part II in Reference (IT) No.49 of 1986 and in that connection Respondent No. 1 having taken inspection of pay sheets offered for inspection it was revealed that the employees whose names are mentioned in the list attached in the application had not been given proper benefits of the Award Part II. Under the circumstances sought a direction against the Petitioners herein to produce the documents as set out therein. By order of 30th January, 2001 the Union was allowed to take inspection of the records. An application was moved on 16th April, 2001 to place on record the inspection sheets. The company filed a reply to taking inspection record by Respondent No. 1 and further prayed that the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 for non -implementation of the Award be rejected. Evidence was led in the matter. Affidavit by way of evidence of Nargis R. Patel was filed on behalf of the Petitioner in which he averred that in the matter of implementation of the terms of the settlement dated 5th July, 1995 Tata Consulting Employees ' Union which is a party to the settlement had not raised any grievance about implementation of the said settlement. There was no cross examination on this aspect of the matter. Then came the impugned judgment dated 12th August, 2004 which is the subject matter of the present petition.;