ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS Vs. N A KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition challenges an Order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Thane, dated january 31, 1985, made in Complaint (ULP) No. 29 of 1977, a proceeding under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

(2.) The Second Respondent is a Company, which manufactures Polyester Staple Fibre at its factory at Thane. Prior to April 1972, the members of a union, known as "ici and Allied companies Employees' Union", which was recognised by the Management of the Second respondent under the Code of discipline. This union was extended several facilities extended to a recognised union under the Code of Discipline and also given a room for conducting its office within the premises of the Second Respondent-factory. In April, 1972, the said union withdrew from the scene after informing the Second Respondent that its employees had ceased to be members of the said union. Thereafter the workmen formed an internal union, which is the seventh Respondent to this petition. The Seventh Respondent-Union was also given the facility of using the office, which was formerly occupied by the erstwhile ICI and Allied Companies employees' Union. At this stage, the Petitioner-Union came on the scene and claimed to be the successor-union of the defunct ICI And Allied Companies Employees' Union. The claims made by the Petitioner Union, based on alleged succession, were rightly turned down by the Second respondent. Between the two, the Second Respondent considered the Seventh Respondent union as more suitable for recognition, and, by a letter dated July 31, 1973, the Second respondent accorded recognition to the Seventh Respondent under the Code of Discipline. This recognition Second Respondent's bona fide belief that the Seventh Respondent represented the majority of the workmen in its factory. Apart from granting recognition to the Seventh respondent-Union, the Second Respondent also made available certain other facilities to the union, which were concomitant with its status as recognised union. This situation continued unabated till the coming into force of the Act with effect from September 8, 1975. Even after coming into force of the said Act, the Second Respondent continued to extend the facilities to the seventh Respondent, which it had enjoyed prior to September 8, 1975. During the period subsequent to 1975, during the year 1976 to be precise, the Second Respondent sponsored some of the office-bearers of the Seventh Respondent-Union to attend national level conferences, seminars and training programmes concerning important Industrial Relations issues. It is also not disputed that the Second Respondent had nominated members of the Seventh Respondent-Union on Joint Management Councils and non-statutory bipartite committees, such as Production committee, Welfare Committee, Canteen Committee and House Election Committee, which had been set up by the Management of the Second Respondent. All this seems to have been done by the Second Respondent under the impression that the Seventh Respondent, which was the union recognised under the provisions of the Code of Discipline, would be entitled to continue enjoyment of such facilities even after the Act came into force.

(3.) On April 19, 1977, the Petitioner-Union filed a Complaint (ULP) No. 29 of 1977 before the industrial Court at Thane, alleging unfair labour practices under Items 1, 2, 2 (a) , 2 (b) , 3 and 4 of Schedule II, Item 2 of the Schedule III and Item 5 of schedule IV of the Act on the part of the management of the Second Respondent. This complaint came to be tried, and has been dismissed by the Industrial Court's order, which is under challenge in the petition.