BLUE STAR WORKERS UNION Vs. BLUE STAR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Union is challenging legality of order dated June 15, 1990 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners as regards unfair labour practice under Section 28 (1) read with Item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Respondent NO. 1 Company till the year 1969 had its manufacturing activities of Colaba and thereafter the manufacturing work was shifted to Thane and the repair and service activities were carried out at Colaba. From the year 1969 canteen facility existed at Colaba. The petitioner claims that food and other items are supplied to the workman at Colaba establishment through a contractor at the rates fixed mutually. The petitioner claims that canteen facility, including the rates of food items supplied, is a condition of service and it is not permissible for the Company to unilaterally revise the rates to the detriment of the workmen. The petitioner claims that on February 9, 1990 the Company informed the Union that the prices of food items have remained constant for over eight years even though the prices in the market have been spiralling. The latter claimed that the management was required to increase the subsidy to the canteen contractor while the rates paid by the employees remained unchanged. The letter further recites that the rates of food items were discussed in the meeting with the Union Office bearers and the proposed revised rates were also disclosed revised rates were also disclosed. Subsequently on April 7, 1990 a notice was put up by the Regional Manager and the Company displayed revised canteen rates. This action on the part of the management led to filing of complaint before the Industrial Court.

(2.) THE gravamen of the complaint before the Industrial Court was that the canteen facilities, including the rates to the charged, is a condition of service and it is not open for the management to unilaterally alter it. The Union claimed that the rates were settled by what transpired between the management and the Union in the year 1985 and thereafter it is not permissible to revise the rates without an agreement or without seeking a reference to the proper authority and obtaining award.

(3.) THE Industrial Court by the impugned order came to the conclusion that canteen facility and the rates to be charged for food items is not a condition of service but the facility was given to the workmen merely as a welfare activity. The Industrial Court further held that the canteen was run by the management on 'no profit no loss' basis. The Industrial Court also recorded a finding that it was not in dispute between the parties that the proposed increase in the rates would not give any profit to the management. On the strength of this finding, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, and that has given rise to the present petition.