MAZAGAON DOCK LTD Vs. ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a Government of India undertaking under the Ministry of Defence, is a Company registered under the Companies act, 1956. It is engaged in Ship Building and ship Repairing activities. It has about 8000 employees under its employment. There is a recognised Union functioning in the organisation. The Respondent Union is not a recognised union. The Respondent union had filed a Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act) against the petitioner Company complaining of the aforesaid unfair labour practices being engaged in by the Petitioner Company and it sought such declaration from the Industrial Court in the complaint of unfair labour practice. The grievance of the said Complainant Union (Respondent No. 1 herein) was in respect of outdoor fitters of the Outdoor Fitting Shop who were said to be 105 in number. According to the Union, there was another category of workmen who were known as diesel shop workmen. The said Union complained of favouritism and discrimination on the ground that though the job of both the categories was the same/similar the diesel shop workmen were getting two additional increments while the outdoor fitters were not paid equal wages for the equal work done by them. According to the said Union, as the duties and job performed by the outdoor fitters was of the same/similar nature as compared with the diesel shop workmen, there was no ground for discrimination to pay lesser wages to the outdoor fitters than those of the diesel shop workmen. According to the Union, the payment of two additional increments to the diesel shop workmen amounted to an act of favouritism regardless of merits as contemplated under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Union therefore prayed for wages on par with the diesel shop workmen. there was no question of there being either favouritism or discrimination in the wages paid to the workmen of both these categories. The petitioner Company further stressed the point that the diesel shop workmen were getting two additional increments on account of a settlement dated September 4, 1985 with the recognised Union. It was pointed out that under the said settlement the nature of work done by the diesel shop workmen was narrated to justify its original demand for four additional increments. It appears finally that as a result of negotiations both the parties agreed to grant two additional increments to the diesel shop workmen for the reasons stated in the said settlement. According to the Petitioner company there was no question of favouritism or discrimination as the diesel shop workmen were being paid two additional increments on account of a settlement with the recognised union. There was no such settlement with the recognised Union or with any other union in respect of payment of additional increments in respect of the outdoor fitters, and therefore, there was no question of showing favouritism or making any discrimination in making payment to the said two categories of the workmen. The petitioner company further pointed out that since there was no other settlement in respect of Outdoor fitters there was no question of unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act i. e. failure to implement award, settlement or agreement. The settlement with the recognised Union was in respect of the diesel shop workmen only and it did not cover the outdoor fitters, therefore, there was no failure on the part of the Petitioner company to implement any settlement, award or agreement qua the outdoor fitters. The petitioner Company had also raised an issue of limitation, as the Union had filed the Complaint of unfair labour practice on December 17, 1990 to claim the benefits of the settlement dated september 4, 1985. According to the company, the complaint was totally barred by limitation. It was further vehemently pleaded and submitted on behalf of the company that the question of job evaluation was not the function of the Industrial Court which is called upon to decide the specific question of unfair

(2.) THE petitioner company contested the complaint by filing a written statement. It denied that it had engaged in any unfair labour practice as alleged by the complainant union. It was the case of the Petitioner Company before the Industrial Court that the nature of work done by both the categories was different and was not even similar. It categorically denied the allegation that the work of both the categories was of the same nature. The company set out the nature of work of both the categories to justify its contention that the work was neither same nor similar, and therefore, labour practice under the Act. According to the petitioner Company, it was a case for adjudication wherein the Industrial Tribunal would have decided the demand raised by the outdoor fitters for claiming additional increments which could have been considered on several technical aspects. The Industrial court sitting under the MRTU and PULP Act had no powers and jurisdiction to evaluate the jobs of both the categories and determine the wage scales of both the categories and even to consider whether the jobs of both the categories were same or similar. The Petitioner Company on the aforesaid amongst other grounds prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) BOTH the parties produced their documents and also adduced oral evidence before the Industrial Court in support of their pleadings. The Industrial Court framed the points for determination and decided the same against the Petitioner Company and in favour of the Union by the impugned Order. It held and declared that the petitioner company had engaged in the unfair labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and directed the petitioner company to grant two special increments to the outdoor fitters as were given to the diesel shop workmen in the year 1985.