CEAT LIMITEDELECTRONICS DIVISION Vs. ANAND ABA SAHEB HAWALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 519 of 1994, which was filed by the original complainants-respondents Nos. 1 to 6 herein before the Industrial Court, Thane, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane in the said complaint on October 24, 1996.

(2.) THE present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 original complainants Nos. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as "the complainants") filed a complaint alleging that the present petitioner-original respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the "company") committed unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(3.) THE complainants contended that they and others were the employees of company. The present petitioner-company declared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the "vrs") on June 30, 1992. Thereafter, there were talks between the company and the union of the employees with respect of the said VRS. The employees were not willing to accept the VRS. However, the management prevailed over the employees to accept the VRS. As an outcome of that talks between the management of company and the union, the Vice President of the company, by his letter dated July 10, 1992 informed to the union that there was no intention to continue the manufacturing operations at Thane unit. It was, however, made clear that if at all the company decides to restart the manufacturing operations, all things being equal, the company will give preference to the person who had been in the employment of the company prior to their separations under the VRS. Then in continuation of this letter, the Vice President of the company addressed another letter on July 11, 1992 to the union that there was apprehension in the minds of the employees that who did not accept the VRS on that occasion could be paid more and, therefore, it was assured that the company would not indulge in any such discrimination, whatever was being offered was the highest. According to the complainants, because of these assurances by the management of the company, most of the employees accepted the VRS.