BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED Vs. SUBHASH SIMRATMAL GUGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent this matter is heard for final disposal at the admission stage. In the circumstances, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune dated 30-9-2002 in Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 195 of 2001. The said complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 alleging unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act" for the sake of brevity ). The background in which the said complaint has been filed is that the petitioner company did not give benefits of pay increase as per settlement dated 24-3-2001 to the respondent No. 1 complainant and, therefore, the consequential relief of direction to the petitioner to give those benefits with difference of emoluments was also prayed. In the said complaint, the petitioner relied on Clause 1. 3 of the said settlement to contend that since the respondent No. 1 has filed two cases regarding unfair labour practice against the petitioner company and since those cases have not been withdrawn by the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to avail the benefits under settlement dated 24-3-2001. On the other hand, according to the respondent No. 1, the two cases instituted by the respondent No. 1 were for challenging the action of the petitioner suspending the respondent No. 1 for four days and that was unconnected with earlier wage settlement dated 12-4-1997 and its implementation. In the circumstances, the respondent No. 1 contended that the non-withdrawal of the cases instituted by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner would be of no consequence and cannot be the basis for denying the benefits under the settlement dated 24-3-2001. The Industrial Court examined the said contention and accepted the stand taken on behalf of the respondent No. 1. In the circumstances, by the impugned judgment and order, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint preferred by the respondent No. 1 and held that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act by not giving benefits of settlement dated 24-3-2001 to the respondent No. 1. Consequential order was passed directing the petitioner to give benefits of settlement dated 24-3-2001 to the respondent No. 1 to pay difference of emoluments to him within a period of one month. The Industrial Court, however, rejected the claim of respondent No. 2 union. In the present writ petition filed by the Management, the decision of the Industrial Court allowing the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 and direction issued to the petitioner is subject matter of challenge. According to the learned Counsel, the Industrial Court has completely misread the relevant clauses of the settlement. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Industrial Court in accepting the respondent No. 1s stand that he was entitled to avail benefits under settlement dated 24-3-2001 inspite of not withdrawing the cases filed by him against the Management.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submissions, I shall first advert to the settlement dated 12-4-1997 arrived at between the Management and the recognised union who is respondent No. 2 herein. Clause 10. 0 and 10. 1 of the said settlement read thus :