SANDOZ INDIA LIMITED BOMBAY Vs. SANDOZ EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present complaint filed by the Complainant-company under S. 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, the complaint is that the respondent which is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act representing some of the employees of the complainant-company is alleged to have indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule III of the Act. The relevant item reads : "To advise or actively support or instigate any strike deemed to be illegal under this Act."

(2.) To have clear picture of the happenings as are alleged to have occurred, optionised version of the statement of facts as it appears in the complaint would be useful. On 2-7-79 the respondent-union is alleged to have forwarded a charter of demands on behalf of the employees which charter of demands according to the complainant contained unreasonable and exhorbitant demands. This was followed by supplementary charter of demands dated 3-8-79. On 5-8-79 a notice was given to the complainant purporting to be a notice under S. 24(1) of the Act and since a reference to the said notice and the subsequent amendments would be highly relevant for the purpose of decision of the present case, the same is quoted as verbatim :

(3.) By reply dated 7-8-79 the respondent was informed about the complainant's intention to carry on negotiations relating to the charter of demands and there was also a requestion to withdraw the strike notice dated 8-8-79. Then on 13-8-79 a notice was served on the respondent-union with regard to the changes it desired in the conditions of service of the employees and demanded that the same, be taken up for discussion along with the demands raised by the respondent. On 9th, 10th, 21st and 22nd of August, 1979 the meeting took place between the parties, when according to the complainant the desirability of withdrawing the strike notice dated 5-8-79 was impressed upon the respondent in order to create an healthy atmosphere for meaningful negotiations. However, no handway could be made in those negotiations and because of what it stated to be the alleged rigid stand taken by the respondent-union.