SUBHAS GANPAT KALZUNKAR Vs. BAYER INDIA LIMITED THANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the First respondent waives service.

(2.) THE petitioner has instituted a complaint under Items 5, 9 and 10 of schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the Act" ). The complaint has been instituted by the petitioner on behalf of himself and 29 other employees. A grievance is made in paragraph 4 of the complaint in respect of a Scheme for voluntary Retirement floated by the First respondent in the year 1995. In paragraph 4, it has been averred that an atmosphere was created so as to lead to fear and apprehension in the minds of the workmen regarding closure of the Department. The Petitioner has averred that on March 27, 1995, he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement by filling up the prescribed form, but that he changed his mind on March 28, 1995. The contention of the petitioner is that the General Manager of the employer stated that he would be informed subsequently, but that eventually no forms were allowed to be withdrawn. In paragraph 7 (i) the grievance is that the Department where the petitioner and other workmen were working has not been closed at all and is still being run. The grievance of the petitioner is also that all the dues of the workmen have not been paid. Among the reliefs in the complaint is a declaration that the First Respondent had engaged in an unfair labour practice under items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV and for a direction to the First Respondent to allow the complainant and other workmen to work in their original place until they attain the age of retirement. In the alternative, there is a prayer that the Petitioner be given pecuniary benefits as mentioned in the complaint.

(3.) THE complaint was instituted on october 28, 1999. Undoubtedly, one of the main defences of the First Respondent is that the complaint itself is barred by limitation and that it has not been instituted within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 28 (i) of the act. An application for amendment of the complaint was filed before the Industrial Court which has been dismissed by the Industrial court holding that if the Petitioner desires to challenge the legality and validity of the voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1994-95, he would be at liberty to file a separate complaint but, that no such prayer can be granted by way of an amendment.