GOODLAS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD Vs. PAINTS EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 30-1-2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1990. By the impugned judgment and order the Industrial Court has declared the petitioners-company having committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 1 (c) and 2 (b) of Schedule II and Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act" and has directed the petitioners-company to pay to the concerned members of the complainant-union the amount as per the settlement dated 22-8-1989, by deducting Rs. 2000/- for factory workers and Rs. 1750/- for staff members. The impugned judgment and order is sought to be challenged on three grounds, viz. that the members of respondent-union had not accepted the terms of the settlement dated 22-8-1979 and therefore, cannot claim benefit under the said settlement, secondly that the members of respondent-union having not given increased productivity in terms of the said settlement, they are not entitled to claim the benefit under the said settlement and thirdly there was bonafide dispute about applicability of the terms of the said settlement to the members of respondent-union and therefore the petitioner cannot be held guilty of adopting any unfair labour practice vis-a-vis members of respondent-union.

(2.) FEW facts relevant for decision are that sometime in 1987, there was lockout declared by the petitioner-company and thereafter a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner-company, wherein respondent-union was represented by one Shri Vijay Kamble and others. The said Shri Vijay Kamble was then the President of the said union. In terms of the said settlement, lockout was lifted. However, the said action was challenged by the respondent-union contending that Shri Vijay Kamble had no authority to represent the respondent-union and legitimate office bearers were Mr. Limaye and Mr. Walawalkar. The contention of the respondent-union was upheld in the Complaint No. 648 of 1987 and thereafter an agreement was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent-union on 9-8-1989, which was, however followed by another agreement dated 22-8-1989 between the petitioner-company and another union by name Shramik Utkarsha Sabha under the presidentship of said Shri Vijay Kamble, a copy of which agreement is found on record at Exh. U-23. Meanwhile, the demands raised on behalf of the workers by the members of respondent-union were referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Reference No. (II) 52/89 as also (II)4/87. It is also to be noted that in terms of the agreement which was entered into between the petitioner-company and the union represented by Shri Vijay Kamble on 18-6-1987, the lockout was lifted subject to signing of settlement by all the workmen which settlement was held to be not binding upon the workmen in the complaint No. 648 of 1987. Further by orders dated 27-7-1987 and 17-8-1987 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, the petitioner company was directed to allow all the workers to report on duty without being compelled to sign the said settlement dated 18-6-1987. While contending that there has been discrimination practised in relation to the members of respondent-union in the matter of payment of wages and service benefits consequent to the agreement dated 22-8-1989 entered into between the petitioner company and the said Shramik Utkarsha Sabha represented by Shri Vijay Kamble and on that count unfair labour practice adopted by the petitioner company vis-a-vis the members of respondent-union, a complaint came to be filed in the Industrial Court under the said Act in January 1990, The same was contested denying the claim of respondent-union by the petitioner-company. While the respondent-union examined Mr. Achyut Karhadkar, and Tukaram walawalkar in support of the complaint the petitioner-company examined sudhir Potdar, Gangadhar Talshilkar and Sham Bhobe in support of their defence. After analysing all the materials on record, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint as stated above.

(3.) WHILE challenging the impugned judgment and order, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the findings arrived at by the Industrial Court regarding absence of prior discussion with the respondent-union regarding the terms of settlement dated 22-8-1989, and failure on the part of the company to give offer to respondent-union and its members to avail the benefits of the said settlement as well as regarding the issue pertaining to the increase in productivity by the members of the union who were parties to the agreement dated 22-8-1989, are perverse inasmuch as that they are contrary to the materials on record. In that regard attention was drawn to the testimony of the witnesses recorded before the Industrial court. It was strenuously argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the contents of the settlement were not only well known to the members of the respondent-union, but a copy of the agreement dated 22-8-1989, was displayed on the notice board inviting them to avail the benefit of the said agreement and they had chosen not to do so and therefore, they cannot without complying with the conditions attached to the said agreement could have sought to complain of not being given the benefit thereunder to them. He further submitted that the chart produced by the petitioner-company along with the written statement discloses the increase in productivity as a result of the service rendered by the members who were parties to the settlement dated 22-8-1989, as against failure in that regard by the members of the respondent-union and that also justifies refusal of benefits under the said agreement to the members of respondent-union. Drawing attention to schedules II and IV of the said Act and particularly Item 1 (c) and 2 (b) of the II schedule, the learned Advocate submitted that neither there was any activity of the union at formation nor there was any partiality or favouritism practiced by the petitioner-company, so as to hold the petitioner-company being guilty of unfair labour practice under the said items, nor the respondent-union had disclosed any breach of any agreement or settlement as such, so as to accuse the petitioner-company of having adopted unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV. He further submitted that there was bona fide dispute as regards the entitlement of the members of respondent-union to claim benefit under the agreement and therefore, there was no occasion for accusing petitioner company of having adopted unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision in the matter of (Tata Press Ltd. v. Tata Press Employees' Union and others), reported in 1994 (II) C. L. R. page 204; (Banshilal Chandel and others v. Union Bank of India), reported in 1997 (II) C. L. R. 409 and (Balmer Lawrie and co. Ltd. v. S. M. Limaye and another), reported in 1992 Lab. I. C. page 205, in support of the contention on behalf of the petitioner-company. It was strenuously argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the members of the respondent who were fully aware of the terms of settlement dated 22-8-1989, cannot insist for benefit under the said agreement being made available to them unless they comply with the pre-conditions in order to avail those benefits in terms of the said settlement.