GLAXO LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. GLAXO INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Union challenges the award dated 1st August, 1994 made by the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in Reference (IT) No. 103 of 1993 and seeks a declaration that the respondent had sought the undertaking from the workmen illegally and in unjust manner and that it was liable to pay wages from 9th December, 1991 to 23rd April, 1992, with interest being the period during which the workmen could not attend to work due to insistence for executing an unjust undertaking.

(2.) The respondent-Company deals in manufacture and distribution of drugs, pharmaceuticals and food items, having its factories at Worli, Thane, Ankleshwar, Nasik and Aligarh. The factory at Ankleshwar was established in 1985 to manufacture Ibuprofen and Sotalol Hydroxide initially and later new produces were introduced. On 30th July, 1987, a settlement was arrived at between the parties which ended on 30th June, 1990 when new demands were raised by the Union including demand for 2 days weekly-off, known as 6 x 2 shift system or rota system. There were negotiations between the parties on this issue, but it could not be resolved. In the meeting of the General Body of the Union held on 27th September, 1991, it was resolved to resort to agitation including indefinite strike to press for their demand for 6 x 2 shift system. This stand was reiterated by the Union in their letter dated 15th October, 1991. On 8th November, 1991 the respondent-Company wrote a letter to the Union drawing its attention to the deterioration in the discipline of the workmen and pointing out that their insistence on flash strike will adversely affect the operations of the Company, which was running-continuous process factory. According to the Company, the irresponsible conduct of the workmen created safety hazards to the plant and personnel. The Union however, by its letter dated 11th November, 1991 reiterated its demand for 6 x 2 shift system. According to the Company, from 8th October, 1991 to 7th December, 1991, there were 14 instances of flash strike, go-slow, slogan shouting etc. on different dates. The Company approached the Civil Court to obtain orders against the workmen for restraining them from using force, executing threats and using abusive language. Ultimately, on 8th December, 1991 the respondent-Company sought an undertaking from each workman at the beginning of each shift to the effect that during the shift, the workmen would not go on strike and will ensure normal output by performing the assigned duties and will maintain discipline. The workmen refused to sign the said undertaking and therefore, Company put up staff notices informing the workmen that such concerted refusal on their part to report for duty would amount to illegal and unjustified strike and that the wages would not be payable for the period of such absence. On 11-1-1992, the Union wrote a letter to the Company seeking withdrawal of the requirement of undertaking. Thereafter, meetings were held before the Conciliation Officer to bring about a settlement and ultimately, on 7th April, 1991, the Union agreed to drop its demand for 6 x 2 shift system and consider the Company's offer for subsidised transport. The demand for 6 x 2 system was dropped by the Union on 23rd April, 1992. Union also agreed to withdraw the agitation and gave an undertaking on behalf of the workmen that they would resume work and will not resort to strike and further that they will ensure normal output and maintain discipline. Thus, with effect from 24th April, 1992, the work was resumed. According to the Company, the workmen were on illegal and unjustified strike from 9th December, 1991 to 23rd December, 1992, while according to the Union, this was an illegal lock-out by the Company, inasmuch as the Company was insisting on an undertaking from each workmen which it could not have done. The dispute regarding payment of wages during the said period ultimately came to be referred to the Tribunal on 31st June, 1993 in the following terms :-

(3.) The Tribunal examined the question as to whether during the said period the workmen had gone on illegal and unjustified stike or whether the Company had declared an illegal and unjustified lock-out. The Tribunal holding that the workmen had resorted to unjustified strike and that under the circumstances the Company was justified in asking them to execute the undertaking which according to the Tribunal did not amount to any change in service conditions, dismissed the reference.