HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Vs. NASHIK WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APART from the merits of the matter, on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection was raised that the petition should be dismissed, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Air India Statutory Corporation etc. v. United Labour Union and others), 1997 (I) C. L. R. 292, on the ground that the Appropriate Government was the Central Government. In the instant case the complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court on the ground that the Appropriate Government is the State Government. It is, however, contended that in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation (supra) the Appropriate Government in the case of the petitioner herein would be the Central Government. If the Appropriate Authority is the Central Government then the complaint itself is not maintainable and the complaint should have been dismissed on that count alone. Before addressing myself to the said issue, which needs to be decided, a few facts may be set out, which would be relevant for the purpose of deciding all issues that arise in the present petition.

(2.) PETITIONER is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its corporate office is at Bangalore. It has factories all over the country, one of which is situated at Nasik District. The said factory is engaged in manufacture of modern Fighter Aircrafts of Supersonic MIG series warplanes for the India Airforce. Petitioner is a fully owned Government of India undertaking which works under the supervision and control of Department of Defence Production and Supplies of the Ministry of Defence. In Nasik it engages about 6,700 employees. Their terms and conditions of services are governed by the settlements entered into with the registered Trade Union i. e. HAL (ND) Employee Union. Respondent No. 1 is a Trade Union claiming to represent Apprentice Trainees who were undergoing training under the petitioners Apprenticeship Training Scheme. That scheme came to an end or was discontinued. The 1st respondent espousing the cause of the said apprentice trainees file complaint of Unfair Labour Practices against the petitioner. Therein they prayed for reinstatement with continuity of services and full backwages. It seems that the Government of India and the then Republic of U. S. S. R. entered into an agreement for manufacture of modified version of fighter aircrafts which required specialised training. In view of that petitioner introduced the training scheme. The said scheme provided no job guarantee on completion of training. However, those who were trained would be considered for employment if sponsored by Employment Exchanges. The petitioner had two schemes, one under the Apprenticeship Act and the other a more specialised training scheme, which was their own in house scheme. The scheme of the petitioner was open to all and not confined to only those trained under the Apprenticeship Act in the petitioners factory but also to those trained in other industrial establishments. In 1988 the petitioner inducted about 134 trainees under the scheme. They were issued letters offering specialised training on the terms and conditions referred to therein initially for a period of 12 months. The trainees confirmed that the said training was only an offer and they had no right to claim employment in the petitioners factory. Out of 134 trainees on completion of training, 8 trainees were absorbed after requisite tests and interviews, as per the recruitments rules and a special drive for SC/st as per the Central Governments directive, 8 other trainees voluntarily left before completion of training. On 10th June, 1989, the Managing Director issues a confidential letter freezing all recruitments at the Nasik Division with exception of recruitment of SC/st categories and to appointment offers which had already been sent to prospective candidates before issuing the circular. On 20th September, 1989 petitioner issued a circular extending the period of training of 52 trainees referred upto 31st December, 1989. In terms of the said circular, the period was to expire on 31st December, 1989. Before the period could expire the 1st respondent filed a petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 5445 of 1989. This Court initially granted ad interim relief restraining petitioner from terminating the trainees. When the petition came up for hearing the Court recorded the following as an order :---

(3.) ON 9th February 1990 the 1st respondent filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 being Complaint (ULP) No. 35 of 1990 for reinstatement of the trainess referred to in the annexure to the complaint with continuity of services and backwages. Interim relief was also prayed for. As further employees were relieved, a fresh complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 36 of 1990 was filed. Interim relief was also prayed therein. Two other complaints being Complaint (ULP) Nos. 44 of 1990 and 45 of 1990 were also filed.