PEST CONTROL INDIA LIMITED Vs. C D KONALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and is engaged in providing pest control services in Mumbai and other cities in India. The 2nd respondent is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Under a settlement dated July 21, 1982 the 2nd respondent was recognised as the sole collective bargaining agent on behalf of the 1st petitioner's employees. Sometime in December, 1985 Shri D. S. Mankar, General Secretary of the 2nd respondent union made an application to the company seeking time off for attending his union's Court cases. The company granted the request of Shri Mankar subject to certain conditions as mentioned in the letter dated December 18, 1985. It appears that this concession was continued by the company from time to time. However, according to the company, Shri Mankar started misusing the time off concession and, therefore, the company was constrained to discontinue the same with effect from March 31, 1988. The 2nd respondent challenged the discontinuation of the concession by filing complaint (ULP) No. 492 of 1988 before the Industrial Court. By an interim order dated April 28, 1988 the Industrial Court directed the company to continue the concession which was granted by letter dated December 18, 1985. It may be stated at this stage that the Complaint (ULP) No. 492 of 1988 was finally dismissed by the Industrial Court and the order of dismissal was confirmed by this Court. Pending the above complaint, the concession was continued by the company as per interim order of the Industrial Court. According to the company, the time off concession was misused by Shri Mankar despite repeated warning letters issued on April 1, 1993, April 3, 1993 and April 12, 1993. The company, therefore, issued show cause notices on December 16, 1993, May 12, 1993 and May 13, 1993 calling upon Shri Mankar to show cause as to why his salary should not be deducted for unauthorised absence from the company's premises. The case of the company was that Shri Mankar was whiling away his time under the pretext of attending Court cases. This was of course denied by Shri Mankar by his replies to the show-cause notices. By order dated May 21, 1993 the company directed that Shri Mankar's salary for 13 hours and 05 minutes should be deducted on account of wastage of time and failure to attend office work, by abusing the concession granted to him and failing to comply with the conditions prescribed under letter dated December 18, 1985.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent challenged the action of the company by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 652 of 1993 under Section-28 read with Items 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV and items 4 (a), 3 and 2 (b) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "mrtu and PULP Act" ). The gravamen of the said complaint was that the deduction of wages for 13 hours and 05 minutes, as finally ordered, was punitive, allegedly in breach of the Standing Orders and that Shri Mankar was being harassed only because he was fighting cases against the management.

(3.) THE company resisted the complaint by filing written statement. The company maintained that Shri Mankar had misused the time off concession and remained absent on several occasions. The company also maintained that it was not necessary to hold any enquiry before deducting the wages. It was also pointed out that a show cause notice was issued to Shri Mankar and his explanation was sought before deducting the wages.