KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD Vs. BALASAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner company has challenged the judgment and order dated April 2, 1990 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No, 296 of 1987, filed by the respondent employee under Section 28 read with Items 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971.

(2.) THE facts, which are not seriously disputed, are that the respondent employee was employed by the petitioner company from July 17, 1983 to October 6, 1984. By an appointment order dated March 25, 1984 he was taken on probation for a period of six months from April 7, 1984 and he was paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 24/ -. His services were terminated with effect from October 6, 1984. The respondent employee raised an industrial dispute to question the legality and propriety of the termination order which came to be set aside by an award of the Labour Court dated May 27, 1987 and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner company accepted the said award and reinstated him on September 21, 1987. The nub of the complaint of the respondent employee is that after reinstatement he was not given the benefits of two settlements in force dated September 25, 1982 and May 29, 1986 entered between the recognized union and the petitioner company. The grievance of the respondent employee was that even after reinstatement he was not given any pay scale but he was paid his wages at the rate of Rs. 24/-per day. He, therefore, filed the present complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court mainly claiming the benefits of the settlements which, according to him, the petitioner company had failed to implement. In the complaint, he had specifically averred that he was employed as a highly skilled workman and he was wrongly continued to be paid Rs. 24/-per day. He, therefore, prayed for declaration and direction to the petitioner company that it had engaged in an unfair labour practice while not implementing the settlement qua the respondent employee and that it should be directed to implement the settlements by making payment to him on the basis of the settlements in force. The petitioner company appeared before the Industrial Court and filed its written statement to contest the complaint filed by the respondent employee. It denied the case of the respondent employee that he was a highly skilled workman and that the petitioner had not implemented the terms of the settlements qua him. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Member of the Industrial Court framed as many as seven issues and answered them in favour of the respondent employee after recording oral evidence. The respondent employee had adduced his whole oral evidence while the petitioner company did not lead any evidence in rebuttal and did not step in the witness box at all to prove its own case or to dislodge the case of the respondent employee. In the oral evidence of the respondent employee he has categorically and specifically stated on oath that the work which he was doing was of highly skilled nature and he had given specific job description. He has also stated that other co-workers who were appointed along with him were also doing the same work of highly skilled nature. There is hardly any cross examination on this fact sworn by him before the Industrial Court. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence before the Industrial Court, it has accepted the case of the respondent employee that he was doing the work of highly skilled nature and that he had proved the same fully and consequently it was held by the Industrial Court that by not applying the settlements to him it had engaged in an unfair labour practice, within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act as alleged by the respondent employee.

(3.) SHRI Joshi, the learned advocate for the petitioner company has assailed the said judgment and order of the learned Member of the Industrial Court on the ground that the question of classification could not have been decided by the Industrial Court in such a complaint. He has also urged that there was no specific issue in respect of classification of the employees and, therefore, in a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to decide such questions. He has also pointed out that the respondent employee was put in the semi-skilled grade as per the settlement and he was being paid accordingly. As against the said submissions of Shri Joshi, Shri Prabhakaran, the learned advocate for the respondent employee has supported the judgment of the Industrial Court. He has taken me through the pleadings and also the oral evidence adduced by the respondent employee. According to him, the respondent employee has positively led evidence to show that he was doing the work of highly skilled nature. He has given specific job description and that he had not vaguely stated that he was doing the work of highly skilled nature. He has also argued that the petitioner company, having not adduced any oral evidence and having not proved the documents by examining the concerned witnesses, it has definitely gone by default and the case which the company had pleaded in the written statement has not been proved at all. He has also pointed out that there was no cross examination of the respondent employee on the point of the job description and on the point that he was doing that work which was of highly skilled nature.