AUTO GENERAL Vs. ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the industrial Court on 8-4-1999 allowing the complaint filed by the respondent making grievance of unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act" on the part of the petitioners and further claiming of back wages to the tune of Rs. 69,597/ -. The challenge is three-fold. Firstly, that without going into the issue as to the obligation of the workman to report to the duties pursuant to the award for reinstatement and without any material on record disclosing attempt on the part of the workman to join the duties, the Industrial Court has arrived at the conclusion that there was refusal on the part of the petitioners to allow the workman to join to her duties on or after 1-6-1990; secondly, that the workman having joined the duties from 26-9-1990, there was compliance of the award for reinstatement in service and once the award was complied with, the complaint in relation to Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act did not survive any further and, therefore, the Industrial Court could not have directed the payment of wages beyond the said date as well as could not have gone into the issue as to whether there was adoption of any unfair labour practice by the petitioners subsequent to the said date as the scope of the complaint was restricted to the issue of non-compliance of the award dated 11-10-1988; and thirdly, that the direction to pay the sum of Rs. 69,597/-has been issued without considering the fact that such a claim has been disputed by the petitioners and without considering the calculations submitted by the petitioners in relation to the amount payable to the workman. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decisions in the matter of (Bombay Steel rolling Mills Ltd. and others v. Khemchand Rajkumr Steel Mills and Pahorpur yards Labour Union, Calcutta), reported in 1964 (11) L. L. J. 120, and (Peer mohamed and Co. , Madras v. Mohamed Hussain and another), reported in 1968 (11)L. L. J. 98, in support of the first ground of challenge and in the decisions in the matters of (Management, Nilpur Tea Estate v. State of Assam and others), reported in 1996 (72) F. L. R. 79 and (State of Maharashtra v. Ajit Maneklal choksey), reported in 1979 (I) L. L. J. 423, in support of the second ground of challenge. On the other hand, the impugned order is sought to be justified by referring to the letter dated 23-6-1990 by the Union requesting the petitioners to allow the workman to join to her duties and the due acknowledgment of the receipt thereof by the petitioners, yet the refusal on the part of the petitioners to allow the workman to join to her duties and secondly that the complaint not only relates to the non-compliance of the award but also nonpayment of the backwages and therefore nothing prevented the Industrial court from awarding the wages for the period for which it has not been paid to the workman and viewed from this angle, according to the learned Advocate for the respondent, no fault can be found with the direction given by the industrial Court to pay the wages in relation to the period even beyond 26-9-1990.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has fairly conceded that the petitioners do not dispute the entitlement of the workman for the back wages for the period from 19-2-1986 to 31-5-1990 as even though the award was delivered on 11-10-1988, since it was an ex. pa. rte award, attempt was made by the petitioners to get the said award set aside but without any success and the order refusing to set aside the award was passed on 31-5-1990 and that therefore the petitioners do not deny the claim for back wages of the workman for the period from 19-2-1986 till 31-5-1990.