NASHIK WORKERS UNION Vs. TRIMBAK RUBBER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE present writ petition arises out of an order of the Industrial Court at Thane dated 30-11-1994 in three complaints alleging unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Two of these complaints, Complaints (U. L. P.) Nos. 20 and 21 of 1990, had been filed by the petitioner while one complaint, Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 22 of 1990, was filed by the respondents.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture Automobile Tubes and rubber products in their factory at Nashik. The respondents employed at the material time about 130 employees. The workers on whose behalf the complaints were filed, had been engaged in 1988 by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the workers were engaged as employees to do work of a regular nature. Some time in June 1989, the workmen joined the petitioner-Union and, according to them, they had raised certain grievances relating to the non-payment of even minimum wages and of exploitation in the form of extended hours of work for which they were required to perform duties. In June 1989, the Union approached the respondent Management with the grievances of the workers after which, according to the complainants, the respondents started issuing ante-dated appointment letters to the workmen to the effect that they were appointed as trainees. It is alleged that the respondents kept 29 workmen out of employment from 23-6-1989 when they resisted the action of the company. On and from 5-8-1989 until 13-8-1989 the workmen were alleged to have been laid off on the ground that there was a shortage of raw material without complying with the provisions of section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the meantime, it is alleged that suspension orders and charge-sheets were issued to a large number of workmen in order to coerce them into giving up union activities. On 14-8-1989, it is alleged that the Works Manager of the respondents declined to permit the workmen to attend their duties insisting, that the workmen give an undertaking admitting to an illegal strike.