CEAT LTD Vs. ANAND ABASAHEB HAWALDAR
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-89
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on February 16,2006

CEAT LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
ANAND ABASAHEB HAWALDAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

G N NAYAK VS. GOA UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

AEPC VRS EMPLOYEES UNION VS. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. MUNICIPAL MAZDOOR UNION MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2012-8-167] [REFERRED TO]
GAJANAN GANGARAM PATIL VS. RELENE PETROCHEMICALS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2012-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA BIRLA INSULATORS VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
S B PATOLE VS. FUJITSU ICIM LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2010-10-172] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. MUNICIPAL MAZDOOR UNION MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2012-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
K S NATARAJAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-572] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN VS. CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, BYCULLA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(SC)-2007-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
AMTS KARMACHARI SANGH VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-39] [REFERRED TO (SO [PARAS 10,11.2]]
BAIJERBAI WADIA HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN VS. SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA (KV) [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-348] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD VS. SOMAYYA S BHANDARI [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-210] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal affirming judgment of a learned Single Judge. By the said judgment learned Single Judge had confirmed the order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, Maharashtra (in short Industrial Court).
(2.)The controversy involved in the present appeal arises in the following background : By Circular dated 30th June, 1992 the appellant - a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 declared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the VRS-I) for its employees which was accepted by the 337 employees. On 16th March, 1994 the appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the employees Union containing another Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the VRS-II). The same was accepted by 179 employees. Respondents 1 to 6 who had earlier accepted VRS-I filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Thane on 20th July, 1994 alleging that the appellant-company had committed an unfair labour practice in terms of item Nos. 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (in short the Act). It was contended that one of the benefits which was given to the employees who had accepted VRS-II, namely payment of a sum of Rs. 90,000/- ex-gratia, had not been extended to the complainants who had retired pursuant to VRS-I in 1992. This according to them was illegal, unlawful and amounted to unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court after considering the materials placed before it came to hold that the grievances of the complainants were well founded. Accordingly, by award dated 24-10-1996, it directed the appellant to pay Rs. 90,000/- to each of the employees who had retired under VRS-I, as similar sum had been paid to 179 employees who had accepted VRS-II in 1994. The order passed by the Industrial Court was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 11-7-2001. In fact the learned Single Judge, modified the award by granting additionally, interest at 6% P.A. from 15-4-1994 till date of payment. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Division Bench which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 12/13-6-2003.
(3.)It is to be noted that before the High Court the following grievances were made by the employer :-
(i) A complaint of unfair labour practice could be filed only by a recognized union and not by an individual workman or some of them. Therefore, in a complaint filed by 6 employees, relief could not be granted to 337 employees.

(ii) In order to sustain the grievance under Item (5) of Schedule IV to the Act, something more than mere differential treatment was necessary to be established. It was incumbent upon the claimants to show that there was any favouritism or partiality shown to one set of workers regardless of merits.

(iii) In order to sustain the grievance under Item (9) of Schedule IV to the Act, it was to be established that there was failure to implement any award, settlement, agreement, and

(iv) In order to sustain the grievance under Item (10) of Schedule IV to the Act, it was to be established that the employer had indulged in act of force or violence.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.