LAWS(BOM)-1981-8-42

VED PRAKASH PRABHUDAYAL AGARWAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On August 31, 1981
Ved Prakash Prabhudayal Agarwal Appellant
V/S
INCOME TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners - Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre are registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioners are running a well equipped and reputed hospital in Bombay and are also running a Research Centre in the hospital premises.

(2.) THE petitioners had employed about 900 workers in the Hospital and the Research Centre in the year 1979. The workers were members of a Trade Union by name 'Maharashtra Shramik Sabha' in the year 1978 and the Union had entered into a settlement dated January 18, 1978 with the employer under S. 18(1) read with S. 2(P) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said settlement was to remain effective up to January 18, 1981. The name of the Union was changed to Maharashtra Kamgar Sabha and the Union signed a fresh settlement on October 5, 1979 in Conciliation under S. 18(1) read with S. 2(P) of the Industrial Disputes Act with the employer. By this settlement the wage scales and other conditions of the employees were fixed and it was agreed that during the subsistence of the settlement, the employees will not resort to strike without giving one month's notice to the employer. Immediately on the next day i.e. on October 6, 1979, Maharashtra General Kamgar Union - respondent No. 2 - gave a notice to the employer claiming to represent 90% of the workmen and seeking recognition as the sole bargaining agent of the employees. The respondent No. 2 - Union addressed a letter through its President Dr. Datta Samant and made a demand on October 8, 1979 for bonus of 20% for the years 1977 -78 and 1978 -79. The demand notice was received by the petitioners on October 9, 1979 and was replied within three days thereafter pointing out that it is not for the petitioners to give recognition to respondent No. 2 -Union and, if so advised, they should get the recognition from an appropriate Court. On October 16, 1979, the respondent No. 2 Union addressed a letter to the petitioners charging the employer of partiality and calling upon the employer to ascertain the membership of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 also claimed that the settlement reached on October 5, 1979 by the employer with Maharashtra Kamgar Sabha was not acceptable to its members.

(3.) THE petitioners inserted a public appeal in the local newspapers on November 1, 1979 calling upon the striking employees to report for duty immediately. Thereafter, on November 6, 1979, the respondent No. 2 Union gave a strike notice under S. 24(1)(a) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act informing the petitioners that they are calling an indefinite strike with effect from November 21, 1979 in support of their bonus demand. The petitioners sent a reply pointing of that the petitioners are a Charitable institution and are exempted from payment of bonus under S. 32(V)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act. The petitioners thereafter on November 14, 1979 field Reference (ULP) No. 69 of 1979 in the Labour Court at Bombay for a declaration of the strike resorted to by respondent No. 2 Union and workmen as illegal. The Labour Court declared the strike as illegal by order dated January 23, 1980 under the provisions of S. 24(1)(a), (h) and (i) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. In spite of this order, the Union refused to with draw the strike. The petitioner made fresh appeal to the employees to report for duty by inserting advertisements in the local newspapers on December 12, 1979. The petitioners also published on January 26, 1980 in Free Pre Journal and other newspapers and the import of the order passed by the Labour Court declaring the strike as illegal and informed the employees that as they have not reported for duty within 48 hours of the declaration by the Labour Court, their services stand terminated with immediate effect and they should collect their legal dues including wages of one month in lieu of notice. It is required to be stated as this juncture that 52 employees reported for work within the requisite period of 48 hours from the time of the declaration by the Labour Court. At the expiry of the stipulated period, in all 330 employees failed to report for duty and even out of them 227 employees approached the employer till March 20, 1980 and they were permitted to resume their services without any break in service. That leaves out only 103 workers who failed to report for duty at any time.