- (1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the Company seeking to challenge Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court maharashtra at Bombay, dated 30th November, 1989 in Complaint (ULP)No. 1042 of 1987. By the impugned Order, the Industrial Court allowed the Complaint of the Union by declaring that the Company had engaged jn and they were engaging in unfair labour practices described in Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices ct, 1971 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as the 'said Act, 1971' ). By the impugned Order, the Company was directed to pay wages amounting to Rs. 31,09,384 as per details given in Exhibit U-171, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the impugned Order til! payment. By the impugned Order, the workers were also directed to resume work. The company was directed to permit the workmen to resume work.
(2.) AT the outset, it may be stated that the Industrial Court has given a very exhaustive Judgment. The Industrial Court has given the entire history of the case which indicates chequered history of litigation. It is not necessary to reproduce all the dates and events. The said dates and events are mentioned in the impugned Order of the Industrial Court. Accordingly, only the relevant dates which are necessary for deciding this writ Petition are give hereinbelow : (a) Revision Application (ULP) No. 4 of 1987 was filed by Respondent no, 1 Union Association of Engineering Workers (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant-Union') The said revision was filed against the decision of the Labour Court, dated 26th December, 1986 in Reference (ULP) No. 67 of 1984 declaring the strike resorted to by the Complainant-Union on 10th July, 1984 as illegal for 14 days on the ground, inter alia, that no prior notice was given by the Union. (b) On 13th October, 1987, in the said Revision (ILR) No. 4 of 1987, the Company, through its Advocate Shri Nagvekar, made the following statement: "as if being the implied condition of service, the Management will continue to protect the interest of the workmen in the factory premises. However, the Management is not responsible if there, is fighting amongst the group of workers inside or outside the factory premises. The Management, however, will take appropriate action, If necessary, against erring side. Bombay, dated 13th October, 1987. " On the same day, in view of the above statement made by the Advocate for the Company, the Advocate for the Complainant-Union made the following statement : "as the Management has assured to give safety and protection, the workers will start resuming on duty from tommorrow onwards, without prejudic to their rights and contentions, as the majority of workers, at present, are out of Bombay. " This statement was made on behalf of the Complainant-Union by Advocate pathak. On the basis of the above statements, the Industrial Court passed the following Order : "as stated by both sides, they should act accordingly. " (c) On 3rd November, 1987 Complaint (ULP) 1042 of 1987 came to be filed in the Industrial Court at Bombay by the Complainant union under Item 6 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of schedule IV of the said Act, 1971. In the Complaint, it was alleged by the Complainant-Union, inter alia that pursuant to the statement made by the Company through its Advocate on 13th October 1987 in the Revision Application (ULP) No. 4 of 1987, the majority of workers decided to resume work on and from 26th October, 1987 on account of intervening Diwali holidays ; that on 26th October, 1987, 30 workmen resumed duties as per the above statement, dated 13th October, 1987. This was also because the Company bad assured the Complainant-Union that 30 workers would be given employment each time. Although all workers were at the gate and wanted to resume duties, the Company allowed 30 workmen to resume duties on 26th October, 1987. Similarly, on 27th October, 1987, although all the workmen offered themselves to resume on duty, the Company did not allow all of them to resume duties. However, at 2 00 p. m. on 27th October, 1987, new persons were taken into the factory. The said new persons were given uniform by the company. The said new persons thereafter assaulted the workers owing allegiance to the Complainant-Union. The said workers, owing allegiance to the complainant-Union gave written complaints in writing to the security Officer. The Company was also informed about the incidence of assault. The Company was also informed about the names of the outside hirelings who had assaulted the workers belonging to the Complainant-Union. Similarly, on 28th october, 1987, when the workers belonging to the Complainant-Union went to resume duties, they were asked to wait on the main gate. Ultimately, 30 workers were given cards, by the company. When these 30 workmen went inside the factory, the newly recruited workmen threatened them. Again, complaints were lodged with the Vakola Police Station. In the above circumstances, the Complainant-Union preferred complaint (ULP) No. 1042 of 1987, inter alia, alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the Company as described under Item 9 Schedule IV of the said Act, 1971. In the said complaint, it is further alleged that the worker belonging to the complainant-Union were always ready and willing to resume their duty ; that the Company had indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV ; that it was the workers' right to perform their duties which right has been denied to them Accordingly, it is alleged that the employer had committed breach under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Complainant Union submitted that the Company may be directed by mandatory order and injunction to permit all the workers who were on the Muster roll of the Company on 10th July, 1984 to forthwith resume their duty and/or alternatively to pay them wages from 10th july, 1984 upto 26th October, 1987 and till the date they were allowed to resume duties. It is further alleged in the Complaint that the action on the part of the Company to refuse work and preventing the workers of the Complainant-Union from resuming on and from 26th October, 1987 (i. e. in terms of the statement, dated 13th October, 1987) amounted to commencing and continuing of lock-out under Item 6 of Schedule II of the said Act, 1971. It is also alleged that the Company brought in outside hirelings inside the factory premises without even entering their names at the gate becaase the Company did not want the workers belonging to the Complainant-Union to resume their duty. Accordingly, the Complainant-Union also prayed for a declaration that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 10 of Schedule IV to the said Act, 1971. Item 6 of Schedule , inter alia deals with imposition of illegal lock-out by the employer. Item 9 deals with unfair labour practice on the part of the employer if the employer commits breach of Award Agreement or Settlement. Item 10 of Schedule IV describes unfair labour practice on the part of the employer who indulges in acts of force or violence. At this stage it may be mentioned that at the time of hearing of the above Complaint (ULP) No. 1042 of 1987, the Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant-Union did not press the alleged unfair labour practice on the part of the Company under item 6 of Schedule II and Item 10 of schedule IV to the said Act, 1971. In other words, the only relevant item which is required to be considered in the present case is Item 9 of Schedule IV to the said Act, 1971. (d) By the impugned Order, dated 30th November, 1989 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) ;no. 1042 of 1987 (which is hereafter referred to, as 'the said Complaint'), the industrial Court came to the conclusion that the Company had indulged in unfair labour practise under Item 9 of Schedule iv of the said Act, 1971 ; that the Company had prevented the workers belonging to the Complainant-Union from resuming duty by using force and violence by conniving with the workers belonging to another Union viz. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena whose workers were paid higher emoluments than the worker belonging to the Complainant-Union and whose workers were given all out protection despite their committing acts of grave violence, that the Industrial Court also found that no action was taken against the erring workers as they belonged to the bharatiya Kamgar Sena, that the Company also did not give permanency to the workers belonging to the Sena and in the process, the Company was responsible for creating Union tivalry and tension inside the factory premises, that the Company did not take any action against the workers belonging to the Sena despite categorical statement in that regard before the Industrial court on 13th October, 1987 to the effect that the Company would take action against any erring workers, that the workers belonging to the Complainant, Union reported for duty as per the above statement made by the Company through their advocate on 13th October, 1987, but they were not allowed to resume work ; that the Industrial Court found support of the aforestated position also from the reports submitted by the Investigating Officers, who were appointed by the Indus trial court during the pendency of the said Complaint and in the circumstances, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the workers were entitled to wages from 26 October, 1987, upto 21-11-89 amounting to Rs. 31,09,384. (e) Being aggrieved by the impugned decision of the Industrial court in Complaint (ULP) No. 1042 of 1987, the preient Writ petition is filed by the Company.
(3.) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that the Order of the Industrial court indicates that it is a well reasoned Order. The Industrial court has well appreciated all the questions of facts. Each and every relevant circumstance has been considered by the Industrial Court The industrial Court has also considered at length, the evidence led by both sides Accordingly, the Industrial Court has recorded findings of fact in which I do not find any perversity. The said findings are in accordance with the evidence on record. :similarly, on the question of law, the Industrial court has based it's decision on the various judgments of this Court. The industrial Court has correctly appreciated the true scope of the pleadings, the evidence before it as well as appreciation of the said evidence in the light of Item 9 of Schedule IV to the said Act, 1971. The Industrial court has also correctly come to the conclusion that the workers did report for duty from 26 October, 1987. The Industrial Court calculated the wages payable to the workers on the basis of the statement furnished by the Complainant-Union day-today indicating the number of workers. who had reported for duty. The Industrial Court has correctly relied upon the report of the Investigating Officers appointed by the Industrial court, which also clearly indicate that the workers did report for duty and they were not allowed to resume work The Industrial Court in the present ULP Complaint No 1042 of 1987 was only concerned with breach of Agreement, dated 13-10-1987 and accordingly granted wages only from 27-10-1987 and not from 1984 as claimed by the Union because it was only concerned with breach of Agreement dated 13-10-1987. The Industrial court has correctly come to the conclusion that the statement made on behalf of the Company on 13th October, 1987 in the light of further action taken by both the Company and the Complainant Union clearly constituted an Agreement under Item 9 Schedule IV to the said Act, 1971. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned Order under writ jurisdiction.;