THEATRE EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. DEEPAK TALKIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the present writ petitions the employer as well as the employee are challenging the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court on 16-3-2001 on a complaint filed by the employee under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971" ).

(2.) FOR the purposes of the present petitions, the employer being the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 339 of 2002 and Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 2623 of 2001 is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-employer and the Respondent No. 1 i. e. Theatre Employees' Union in Writ Petition No. 339 of 2002 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2623 of 2001 is hereinafter referred to as the respondent-union.

(3.) THE facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under :-The respondent-union are the employees union in the theatres which are run and situated at Bombay. The Petitioner is the owner of one of the theatres known as M/s Deepak Talkies in Bombay. It is the case of the petitioner that on the death of her husband late Shri S. D. Shah on 5-1-1998, the petitioner took over the right, title and interest and possession of the Deepak Theatre with effect from November 1998. It was the case of the respondent-union that there are various employees who are employed by the petitioner-employer part-time though they in fact fall under the categories for full time employees. It is the further case of the respondent-union that an award has been passed being an Arbitration Award dated 27-6-1980 in Reference (VA) No. 1 of 1979 by Shri B. B. Tambe (hereinafter referred to as "tambe Award") and the said Tambe Award inter alia prohibits the employment of the workers in the said categories in which they are employed as part-time employees in the said theatre. It is thus the case of the respondent-union that there is a breach and/or non-compliance of the Tambe Award. On the basis of the aforesaid contention, the respondent-union has preferred a complaint to the Industrial Court under the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. It is the case of the respondent-union that there is a breach of items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 as well as item 1 (a) of Schedule II of the said Act. The said items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV read as under :-