DALANVALAN IMARAT BANDHKAM AND PATBANDHARE KAMGAR UNION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated 17th March, 1989, made in Complaint (ULP) No. 468 of 1987 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a Trade Union of workmen employed in the Public Works Department. The petitioner-Union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Nasik, under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act on behalf of 14 workmen working in the Public Works Department of State of Maharashtra. It alleged that the concerned 14 workmen had been served with retrenchment orders on 2-7-1987 terminating their services with effect from 9-8-1987. The petitioner Union had raised an industrial dispute, inter alia, with regard to the conditions of service of the workmen of the Public Works Department carried on the Daily Wage Estabishment, Work Charged Establishment and Temporary Establishment. By the said dispute, one demand made was that any workman who had worked on any one or more of the said Establishments, for a period of one year or more, should be made permanent and taken on the permanent Establishment and given all the consequential benefits. This dispute was admitted in conciliation by the Conciliation Officer on 18th September, 1984, under section 12 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Pending the proceedings in conciliation, the first respondent terminated the services of the 14 concerned workmen on 2-7-1987 on the ground that they were temporary. Subsequently the Conciliation Officer made a Failure Report dated 7-9-1987 and the Industrial Dispute came to be referred for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal by a reference dated 2-3-1988. On these facts, about which there is no dispute, the petitioner contended before the Industrial Tribunal that the action of termination of services of its member-workmen amounted to an alteration of the conditions of service applicable to them in regard to a matter connected with the dispute which was admitted in conciliation. Since the said alteration was prejudicial to the interest of workmen, it amounted to the contravention of the provisions of section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as such change had not been brought out with the express permission of Conciliation Officer before whom the proceedings were pending. The petitioner also contended that the retrenchment was bad for want of publication of the Seniority Notice and for failure to follow the rule of last come first go enunciated in section 25-c, of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was, therefore, pleaded before the Industrial Court that the retrenchment of the concerned 14 workmen amounted to unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court rightly rejected the contention based on want of publication of seniority list and non-compliance with section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Court found that these contentions had not been established factually. On the question as to whether there was contravention of section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Industrial Court took the view that the workmen on whose behalf of the complaint had been filed were not workmen concerned in the conciliation proceedings and further that the termination of their services did not amount to breach of the provisions of section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This order of the Industrial Court is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) MR. Kochar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, rightly did not impugn the findings of the Industrial Court on the issue of want of publication of seniority list and contravention of section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. He concentrated in attacking the finding of the Industrial Court that there was no breach of the provisions of section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore there was no unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.