MANAGER Vs. JAYANTIBHAI REVABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petitions, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and order dated 07.07.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Appeal (IC) No. 26 of 1997 confirming the judgement and order passed by the Labour Court on 19.06.1997 in B.I.R Application No. 814 of 1991 whereby the Labour Court granted Rs. 750/- per month from March 1988 till 10.10.1991 and/or till the change continues and further ordered to pay Rs. 1000/- to each respondent as cost.

(2.) The petitioner Mill Company is governed by the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. On 02.09.1997, the Mill company entered into a registered agreement with Textile Labour Association. As per the agreement, the first phase of rationalisation, it was agreed to remove 48 SIMCO registered modification agreement entered into between the Mill company and the TLA. The respondents on 10.09.1991 filed B.I.R Application No. 814 of 1991 alleging that the Mill company was taking additional or more work from them than the normal work and claimed wages/compensation at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The Labour Court allowed the said application by holding that the Mill company had committed illegal change and had taken additional work by adding 8 water jet looms and not giving additional wages for additional work. However, the Labour Court has not granted wages/compensation. Against the said order, petitioner had filed Appeal (IC) No. 26 of 1997 before the Industrial Court. The industrial Court had confirmed the order of the Labour Court and also granted RS. 750/- per month from March 1988 till 10.10.1981 and/or till the change continues, further ordered to pay Rs.1000/- to each respondent as costs. Hence, these petitions.

(3.) An attempt was made by learned advocate for the petitioner to raise a contention that Clause 4 of the agreement dated 02.09.1987 and also the amended Clause 4A of the agreement were not considered by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. This contention was not raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court and Industrial Court. Hence, in view of concurrent findings and view taken by the authorities, no interference is called for. No other contentions are raised. The petitions stand dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.