SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER URDHWA PAINGANGA PROJECT CIRCLE SINCHAN BHAWAN NANDED Vs. YAVATMAL ZILLA RASTE IMARATI VA PATBHANDHARE KAMGAR UNION NANDED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein challenge the order passed by the Labour Court; Amravati in Complaint (ULPN) No. 189 of 1985 on 12th June, 1987 whereunder it was declared that the petitioners have engaged themselves in unfair labour practice and hence directed them to cease and desist from such unfair labour practices. As many as 173 workers whose names are mentioned in the list attached (hereinafter referred to as the listed workmen) were ordered to be reinstated in service with back wages. Even the order passed in Rev. (ULP) No. 93 of 1987 on 16th September, 1988 is impugned in this petition.

(2.) A complaint under section 28 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed by the respondent No. 1 Union espousing the cause of 173 workmen of Division No. 2 of Urdhwa Painganga Project alleging that their termination by notice dated 30-9-1985 is invalid and illegal for violation of the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. It as also the case of the respondent Union that despite there being sufficient work, their retrenchment was patently for false reasons. They complained even contravention of section 33 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent Union who thus viewed the retrenchment as unauthorised, invalid and illegal, claimed reinstatement and back wages.

(3.) THE petitioners opposed the complaint denying inter alia that they have engaged in unfair labour practice or that they have violated section 25-F or 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners defended the complaint by specifically contending that since work was hearing completion and since the Department were closing down Sub-Division Nos. 8 and 9, it was necessary to reduce the strength of workers. It was for non-availability of work that the retrenchment was resorted to. An objection was also raised by the petitioners that the respondent Union was not competent to raise the dispute. They hence claimed that the complaint be dismissed.