GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. N A KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a representative and approved Union for Transport Industry. The respondent No. 3 is a registered Undertaking engaged in the transport industry. The respondent No. 3 runs "b. E. S. T. Undertaking" and carries on transport business.

(2.) ON 26th December, 1983, the respondent No. 3 made an application to the Labour Court, being Application (L. C. B.) No. 709 of 1983, for a declaration that the strike or stoppage of work resorted to by the employees of the undertaking of respondent No. 3 herein represented by the petitioner Union on 4th October, 1983, was illegal strike under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The respondent No. 3 made the said application under sections 97 (1) (b) and 97 (A) read with section 78 (1) (A) (C) and section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It was averred in the said application that the employees of the 3rd respondent Undertaking had indulged in illegal strike or stoppage of work on the 4th October, 1983, on investigation of the petitioner Union. In para 4 of the said application, the respondent No. 3 averred that prior to 4th October, 1983, the petitioner Union had held gate meetings of the employees of the said Undertaking, instigated and/or exhorted the concerned employees to go on strike on the 4th October, 1983 without serving any notice on respondent No. 3 as required by law. In para 4 of the said application, the respondent No. 3 set out details in respect of the said gate meetings held at Central Depot, Goregaon Depot, Ghatkopar Depot, Kurla Depot and Marol Depot. The respondent No. 3 averred that Shri Arjun Panchmuckh, Shri Natekar, Shri Asgar, Shri Yelve, Shri Daya Seelam and Shri Narayan Phenany, General Secretary and Office bearers and Members of the petitioner Union had addressed various gate meetings at various Depots. It was further averred in para 4 of the said application that the activists, workers and members of the petitioner Union had proposed that the members of the Undertaking must resort to strike on the 4th October, 1983 in support of the demands by the said Union regarding regraduation and other industrial matters in dispute which were under consideration of the B. E. S. T. Management. At or about the same time, Shri George Fernandes, Leader and President of the B. E. S. T. workers Union had also given a call for token general strike and addressed several meetings held by the B. E. S. T. active Committees. It was averred in para 5 of the said application that the petitioner Union and their active workers had instigated and/or exhorted the workers to go on strike on the 4th October, 1983, with a view to give strong support to the call given by Shri Fernandes and also to impress upon the management to consider and accept the demands of the B. E. S. T. Union for regraduation etc. In para 6 of the said application the respondent No. 3 referred to the fact that Shri George Fernandes had addressed meetings outside the Kurla Depot on 1-10-1983. In para 7 of the said application, it was averred that in all 2,778 Bus Conductors, 1,839 Bus Drivers, 1,010 Cleaners and various other employees of the transport industry resorted to cessation of work acting in combination or concerted refusal under a common understanding of employees not to work on the 4th October, 1983. In para 8 of the said application, it was averred that some of the striking workmen indulged in stone throwing on loyal workers and 7 persons were arrested. It was further averred that as a result of the said strike, about 561 buses could not be turned out and great inconvenience was caused to the travelling public. The buses were damaged. It was averred in para 8 of the said application that the approximate cost of the repairs of the damaged buses came to Rs. 19,000/- and loss of revenue to the undertaking came to Rs. 6,48,680/ -. It was further averred in para 9 of the said application that the procedure prescribed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act like issue of notice etc. was not followed by the petitioner Union before resorting to the said strike. The petitioner Union was Opponent No. 2 in the said application. The petitioner Union had already submitted its charter of demands to respondent No. 3. The President of the petitioner Union had referred this fact at the gate meeting held on the 1st October, 1983 and appealed to workers to go on strike. This fact is specifically referred to in the order of the Industrial Court (Exhibit `f to the petition) and is not disputable. The petitioner Union filed its written statement in reply to the said application. In para 3 of the said written statement, the petitioner Union averred that the absention of the employees of the said Undertaking was like a normal absenteism in Transport and Supply Industry. Relevant factual statements regarding particulars of the gate meetings and the pending demands with which the strike had linkage were not even dealt with in the said written statement. It was not averred in the said written statement as now contended at the bar that the said strike or stoppage of work had no nexus with the industrial matters or the industrial disputes raised by the petitioner Union and that the said stoppage of work was merely for the purpose of giving support to the call for "bharat BANDH" unconnected with the demands of the Union.

(3.) AT the hearing of the said application, the management examined three witnesses. Shri Prabhakar Vasudev Shroff, Personnel Officer of the Undertaking, stated on oath that no strike notice was served on the Undertaking and the Charter of Demands submitted by the recognised Union was pending. During the course of his deposition, the said witness referred to gate meetings addressed by the activists of the petitioner Union. It was admitted during the course of cross-examination of the said witness that the call for strike was given by the B. E. S. T. Workers Action Committee for strike. It was, however, emphasised on behalf of the respondent No. 3 herein throughout that the B. E. S. T. Workers Action Committee was acting at the behest of the petitioner Union and the petitioner Union could not, therefore, escape from its responsibility for the said illegal strike. In a technical sense it is perhaps possible to state that the B. E. S. T. Workerss Action Committee cannot be equated to the petitioner Union. It cannot be reasonably disputed that the abovereferred Action Committee was manned by the office bearers and the activists of the said Union and the exhortion or instigation for the said strike was given by the B. E. S. T. Workers Action Committee as well as by the petitioner Union. Thus, for all practical purposes, the differentiation sought to be made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is meaningless. Shri Gopinath Vaman Joshi, Assistant Security Officer of the respondent No. 3 Undertaking also supported the case of the 3rd respondent. Shri Sayeed A. S. M. Sayeed also supported the case of the 3rd respondent as pleaded in the said application. No one was examined as a witness on behalf of the petitioner Union. The petitioner Union did not set out relevant facts in the written statement. The petitioner Union did not lead any defence evidence. The activists and office bearers of the union ought to have led defence evidence. The petitioner withheld relevant evidence. Thus the petitioner indirectly accepted the testimony of witnesses of respondent as correct. In any event, the writ Court cannot interfere with finding of fact based on relevant evidence as aforesaid.