ARUN WANKHEDE Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of general importance as raised in these petitions, is as to whether the non -compliance of provisions of law could be a failure on the part of an employer to implement an agreement, so as to constitute an unfair labour practice as envisaged by Item 9, Schedule IV (for brevity 'the Entry') of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971') The complaint of petitioners under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 is that their termination as effected by the employer being in violation of Sections 25 -F and 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'), is an unfair labour practice, under the Entry. The Industrial Court, however, rejected the complaint so made.

(2.) MR . S.D. Thakur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner employee, pointed out that failure on the part of employer to implement, Award, Settlement or Agreement is an unfair labour practice as enumerated under the Entry. The Act of 1971 does not, however, defined the term 'agreement'. Considering the scheme and object of the Act of 1971, the term needs generous and liberal interpretation. The contract of employment is necessarily an agreement between employer and employee. Such an agreement is regulated according to the provisions of law. Section 25 -F and Section 25 -G of the Act of 1947 are such provisions. The Standing Order though bears the status of law, is held to be a contract of employment. As such, there could not be any impediment to treat the relevant provisions of law from being the part of agreement as envisaged by the Entry. Section 25 -J of the Act of 1947, according to Mr. Thakur by necessary implication, incorporates the provisions under Sections 25F and 25G in the agreement.

(3.) THE learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees' Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited 1986 1 L.L.J. 490. Pointing out the observations in para 23, it is contended that non -compliance of Section 25 -0 while closing down the Division is held to be a breach of Settlement and, therefore, amounts to unfair labour practice. Relevant observations are as thus: In the present case, there was a Settlement arrived at between the Company and the Union under, which certain wages were to be paid by the Company to its workmen. The Company failed to pay such wages from 18th September 1984, to the eighty -four workmen whose services were terminated on the ground that it had closed down its Churchgate Division. As already held, the closing down of the Division was illegal as it was in contravention of the provisions of 25 -0 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Under Sub -section (6) of Section 25, where no application for permission under Sub -section (1) of Section 25 is made, the closure of the undertaking is to be deemed to be illegal from the date of the closure and the workmen are to be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time in force, as if the undertaking had not been closed down. The eighty -four workmen were, therefore, in law entitled to receive from 18th September 1984, onwards their salary and all other benefits payable to them under the Settlement dated 1st February 1979. These not having been paid to them, there was a failure on the part of the Company to implement the said Settlement and consequently the Company was guilty of the unfair labour practice specified in Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Act and the Union was justified in filing the complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Act complaining of such unfair labour practice. (emphasis is supplied, by me.) It is thus amply clear that closing down of a Churchgate Division in violation of Section 25 -0 is held to be illegal. Closing down of Division, however, was not held to be an unfair labour practice, as tried to suggest. Nonpayment of salary by the employer in accordance with the settlement dated 1.2.1979 alone is held to be an unfair labour practice under the Act of 1971. Mr. Thakur then invited my attention to a decision P.S. Kubal v. Ravindra Hindustan Platinum (Pvt.) Limited 1990 (1) L.L.N. 224. This Court relying on a decision cited supra, made an observation in para 10: The Supreme Court found that the division had been closed in contravention of the provisions of Section 25 -0. There was, thus, it held a failure on the part of the employer to implement the settlement and the employer was guilty of the unfair labour practice specified in Item 9 of Schedule IV. What is extracted by the High Court is not in conformity with the observation of the Supreme Court as reproduced. The authority therefore does not assist the learned Counsel.