CEAT LIMITED Vs. ANAND ABA SAHEB HAWALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge, dated July 11, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 1111 of 1997. By the said order, the learned single Judge confirmed the order passed by a Member of the Industrial Court, Thane, dated 24th October,1996 in Complaint (ULP) No. 519 of 1996.

(2.) CERTAIN facts are not in dispute. On or about June 30, 1992, the Appellant Company declared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme ("first VRS" for short) for its employees, which was accepted by 337 employees. On March 16, 1994, the Appellant declared second VRS which was in the nature of Memorandum of Understanding ("mou") ("second VRS" for short ). That was accepted by 179 employees. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who had accepted first VRS of 1992 filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Thane on July 20, 1994, alleging that the Company had committed unfair labour practice under item Nos. 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). It was contended by them that the benefits which were given to employees who had accepted second VRS (Mou of 1994) had not been extended to the complainants who retired in 1992. The said action was illegal, unlawful and amounted to unfair labour practice.

(3.) THE Industrial Court, after considering the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, upheld the contention, granted the relief prayed by the employees and directed the Appellant Company to pay an amount of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) to each employee as had paid to 179 employees who had accepted second VRS in 1994.