REGIONAL MANAGER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NAGPUR Vs. REGIONAL SECRETARY, MAHARASHTRA STATE TRANSPORT KAMGAR SANGHATANA, KARANJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a complaint to Industrial Court, Nagpur complaining of Unfair Labour Practice by the appellants employer in terms of Section 26 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as Act No. I of 1972). It was the case of the respondent that the appellants have failed to implement term No. 69 of the settlement dated 25-4- 1956 and thereby they were indulging in unfair labour practices. Accordingly it was claimed that the action of the appellants be declared as unfair labour practice and further directing the appellants to desist from continuing such unfair labour practice and to absorb twenty seven employees of the ex-operators of the passenger road transport service.

(2.) With the nationalisation of passenger road transport service which commenced in the year 1956 in the State of Maharashtra, the services were being gradually taken over in stages by the appellants. As a consequence thereof, the private passenger transport services were required to be closed down rendering huge number of employees unemployed. The workmen through their unions entered into various settlements with the appellants since its formation as an establishment. The appellants had assured to absorb all the bona fide employees of the ex-operators and in one such settlement dated 25-4-1956, they unequivocally agreed to implement the assurance given for such absorption. In the Vidarbha area of Maharashtra State, nationalisation of passenger road transport service took place in the year 1974. Twenty seven bona fide employees of the ex-operators, though called for interview were not absorbed and hence the complaint was filed by the respondent.

(3.) Amongst the various defences raised by the appellant it was their contention that twenty seven employees were called for interviews on various occasions but they could not be selected as they were found to be unsuitable. It was also their case that the settlement did not confer an unqualified right of absorption in the face of various resolutions passed from time to time and the General Standing Order dated 19-6-1959, prescribing for recruitment, seniority and categorisation. Legal submission was also made in defence that the respondent trade union had no locus standi to initiate the complaint on behalf of persons who were not in the employment of the appellant Corporation.