MRF LIMITED Vs. GOA MRF EMPLOYEES UNION GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant employer has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated May 2, 2003. The question formulated by the learned Judge for consideration was as under:

(2.) A few facts may be set out. There were disputes between the parties which were taken up in conciliation including Charter of demands. The respondent No. 1 is a registered union whose members are the workmen employed with the appellant herein. Settlement arrived at between the employer and the workmen was due to expire on September 30, 1995. The respondent No. 1 herein had served the notice of termination of settlement on July 29, 1995. On February 15, 1996, respondent no. 1 served a Charter of Demands. The appellant, in its turn also served a Charter of demands dated February 7, 1996. As the negotiations between the parties did not culminate into a settlement, the Labour commissioner being called upon to intervene, commenced conciliation proceedings. As the matter could not be settled, a failure report came to be submitted on October 28, 1996. As no reference was made for a considerable period of time, the Union filed Writ Petition bearing No. 135/1997, seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents therein to refer the dispute under Section 10 (1) to the industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The petition was disposed of by an order dated June 9, 1997, wherein the statement on behalf of the appropriate Government was recorded that the dispute had been referred to the Industrial tribunal by order dated June 5, 1997.

(3.) IT is the case of the Union that the employer to pressurise the workmen, started illegally changing service conditions to their prejudice. Hence the Union by letter dated august 20, 1997 called upon the appellant to refrain from going ahead with the same. As the employer refused to refrain from altering change, a complaint cannot be filed by the union under Section 33-A of the Industrial disputes Act. The reliefs prayed therein were for a declaration that appellant had illegally changed the service conditions of the workmen and for directions calling upon the respondent no. 1 to cease and desist from changing the service conditions of the workmen and not to implement the seven day running system in the departments hitherto run on a six day Sunday off system. An interim relief was sought to restrain the employer, pending the hearing and final disposal of the complaint from running the departments hitherto run on a six-days Sunday of system to the Seven-day running system and to further restrain the respondents from making any changes in the service conditions. The industrial Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the respondent No. 1s application for interim reliefs by order dated September 3, 1998 relying on the Judgment of the Kerala high Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank ltd. v. Parameswara Menon, 1980-II-LLJ-45. The Tribunal held that it had no powers to grant interim reliefs sought, as they were in the nature of injunction and that the provisions of the Act do not confer powers on the Tribunal to grant such orders. It is against this order that the writ petition was filed, from which the present L. P. A. Placing reliance on the judgment of Kamarhatty Company Ltd. v. Ushinath Pakrashi, AIR 1959 SC 1399 : 1959-II-LLJ-556, the learned single Judge held that while considering the application under section 33-A, the Tribunal has all powers to deal with the complaint as it would have, whilst dealing with the reference under Section 10. This aspect of the matter has not been argued before this Court. The learned Judge, thereafter, proceeded to consider the question whether under Section 10, the Tribunal has power to grant interim relief including in the nature of an injunction. The learned Judge relied in the case of Management of Hotel imperial, New Delhi and Ors. v. Hotel Workers union, AIR 1959 SC 1342 : 1959-II-LLJ-544, the judgment in the case of Lokrnat Newspapers pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad AIR 1999 SC 2423 : 1999 (6) SCC 275 : 1999-II-LLJ-600 and the judgment in the case of Delhi Cloth and general Mills Co. Ltd. v. Shri Rameshwar daya and Anr. AIR 1961 SC 689 : 1960-II-LLJ-712 and also on a Judgment of division Bench of this Court in the case of bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Mumbai v. Petroleum Employees Union, Mumbai 2001-II-LLJ-81. The learned Judge held that he was unable to agree with the view taken by the kerala High Court in Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. Pararneswara Menon (supra ). Certain other judgments relied on behalf of the employer were considered by the learned Judge who held that they would not apply while considering the powers under Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act. The learned Judge, thereafter, was pleased to hold that the Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to grant the interim reliefs. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter shall be referred to as the I. D. Act.