THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE B.E.S.T. Vs. THE B.E.S.T. WORKERS UNION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Complaint has been brought by the General Manager of Bruhan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (in short the B.E.S.T. Undertaking) against the representatives union, their representatives and other unions for having committed an act of unfair labour practices under items 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Sch. III of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. Briefly stated, the facts of the Complainant's case are as under: - -

(2.) IT is further case of the Complainant that the B.E.S.T. Undertaking is exempted from the Bonus Act. There are directions from the State Government to that effect, that in lieu of bonus, ex -gratia payment by given to Class III and Class IV workers. The question with regard to ex -gratia payment was discussed with the State Government and the decision thereon is likely to be taken very shortly. If the Respondents proceeded during pendency of the Government decision, it would cause inconvenience to the public. His undertaking would also cause heavy monetary loss. It will create problem of disturbance of law and order. The workers on strike would cause damages to the buses. It is further contended that the demands of the workers are under consideration, therefore, there is no reason to report to dharana agitation/strike/stoppage of work from the mid night of 5th October, 1998. By virtue of the agreement dated 25th June, 1997, the Respondents Nos. 1 and 6 unions cannot go on strike/stoppage of work. In the complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 01 of 1997 filed before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, the Respondent No. 1 Union has been restrained from giving any call off strike or stoppage of work. It is further contended that the Respondent No. 1 and other unions may resort to dharana/strike/stoppage of work as proposed, and it amounts to breach of agreement dated 25th June 1997. The Respondents have also not given any notice of the same, as required by law. Thus, the action of the Respondents amounts to unfair labour practice under items 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Sch. III of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. Hence, the present complaint for issuing mandatory orders and for other consequential reliefs thereto.

(3.) ON appearance, the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement jointly at Exh. U -7 and thereby resisted the present complaint. According to them, the Respondent No. 4 is the Central Organization of Trade Union and he is not directly concerned with day to day activities of the Respondent No. 1 union. In such circumstances, the Respondent No. 4 is wrongly impleaded as a necessary party to the present complaint. It is further contended that the complaint does not disclose any material facts, but is has been filed on presumption and assumption. It is further contended that the meeting held at Shirodkar Hall on 23rd September 1998 was arranged a usual for day to day activities. To arrange such meeting or to stage dharana for the pending grievances do not amount to any unfair practices. It is further contended that the Respondent No. 3 sent a letter dated 25th September 1998 to the B.E.S.T. Undertaking for the pending issues and for requesting the B.E.S.T. Undertaking to settle the same. The B.E.S.T. Undertaking received the said letter but failed to solve the issues mentioned in the said letter till 6th October 1998, It is further contended that they had not demanded any bonus to ex gratia amount in lieu of bonus under the Bonus Act before Diwali festival for the categories of the employees. For the said purpose, directions of the State Government are not required. Thus, they have neither proposed, no went on any strike. As regards dharana, it is not illegal to stage a peaceful dharana and it is not amounting to any unfair labour practice. Even it does not amount to strike or stoppage of work. The B.E.S.T. Undertaking, who forced the employees to propose a dharana is responsible as it failed to comply with the settlement dated 25th June 1997. They resorted to peaceful dharana agitation outside the establishment of the Complainant Undertaking and that too without causing any obstruction. Therefore, the B.E.S.T. Undertaking cannot make any grievance against the employees, who participated in dharana and who applied for leave. It is not an unfair labour practice where the employees remained absent from work. Thus they have not instigated, aided, abated any strike or stoppage of work. The employees, who participated in dharana agitation did so voluntarily and not because of the instigation from any of them.