BHARAT CONTAINERS PVT LTD Vs. ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition, the Company seeks to challenge Judgment and Order of the Industrial Court dated 31st August 1990, allowing the Complaint filed by Engineering Workers union being Complaint (ULP) No. 103 of 1986. By the impugned Order, the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion by a very exhaustive Judgment that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. By the impugned Order, the Industrial Court directed the company to give/pay all the benefits to ten workmen, which the Company had unlawfully deducted on the ground that the workmen did not give the requisites production as required under the Settlement dated 4th May 1984.

(2.) In the above case, the following facts are required to be stated :

(3.) Mr. Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Company, at the very outset, submitted that the Industrial Court has made observations which were not in consonance with the evidence on record. Mr. Bhatt drew my attention to certain observations, particularly with regard to facts and figures mentioned in the Balance Sheets. He submitted that although the Balance Sheets prior to 1984 indicated that the machines were obsolete, the Balance Sheets for the subsequent years did not indicate that the machines were out-dated and that there was nothing on record to show that the production had gone down on account of the machinery being old and out-dated. He submitted that the findings of the Industrial Court were totally perverse in the sense that facts and figures in the Balance Sheets of the earlier year are shown as facts for the year 1985-1986. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the Written arguments of the Union have been reproduced as findings in the Judgment of the Industrial Court which clearly shows non-application of mind and non-appreciation of the evidence on record. It is, therefore, contended that on wrong appreciation of evidence the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the Complaint ought to be allowed.